Batman-Online.com

Jack Nicholson had this to say about Heath Ledger's portayal of The Joker:

"Heath has taken him to a new level.  I couldn't tear my eyes away."

Where did you hear this?

It will be in tomorrows Sunday World (Irish weekly paper - southern edition).

Oh rite, where did Jack see it?

I saw an interview and he said he wasnt interested in watching it

It didn't say where he saw it. The whole article was about how TDK is saving Warner's ass money-wise.  The last paragraph mentioned Jack.

I didnt realise WB was in such difficulty, just shows you.

It talks about the recent turkeys WB has put out.

I suppose there is a few, but I think every studio is doing the same. Hollywood is dyer at mo. Theres nothing really 'new' about and everything is nearly special effects orintated.

George Lucas stated a year ago the 'blockbuster' was dead. He could be rite.

Just wondering is he saying that Heath did exellent job with this 'new joker' and that he liked it or is he saying that Heath did a better job then him?. Cause the whole world knows Heath did an A+ job with his joker but Jack really shouldn't sell himself short his Joker is legendary.

I mean what is Jack gonna say "oh he wasnt as good as me, he was sh1t"

lol, I'm not saying Ledger is rubbish at it, (i havent seen it yet), but I think Jacks doing a bit of making up after his "I warned him" comment. He got a lot of flack for that.

Quote from: Joker81 on Sun, 13 Jul  2008, 12:33
I mean what is Jack gonna say "oh he wasnt as good as me, he was sh1t"

True, but I believe he meant it.

Quote from: Joker81 on Sun, 13 Jul  2008, 12:33but I think Jacks doing a bit of making up after his "I warned him" comment. He got a lot of flack for that.

I don't see why Jack should have gotten flack for that.  He was right to say it.  The whole statement was Jack telling about how he told Heath to be careful using sleeping pills because of an experience he had.

If he hadn't said it, speculation that Heath killed himself at the time may have been worse (although it was pretty rampant at the time).

No I dont think he should have got flack for it, it was blown completely out of proportion.

And Jack did have his say at the press conerence for the bucket list. When asked about Ledgers death he said he is always warning people about that drug/sleeping tablet and how dangerous it is.

Anyway, maybe he did mean it, but they'er all actors. Theye gonna respect eachother. Its not competitive to them, its a living.

This is the full article

QuoteBATMAN Christian Bale and tragic Joker star Heath Ledger are set to perform one of Hollywood?s most spectacular rescue acts? by saving an entire movie studio.

The Dark Knight, which hits Irish cinemas in 12 days, is hotly tipped to become only the fourth film in history to crash through the billion-dollar barrier at the box office.

This would more than ease the financial woes of Tinseltown giant Warner Bros. following a string ofexpensive flops this year.
Action movie Speed Racer crashed in flames and caveman epic, 10,000 B.C. only managed to scrape into minor profit.

Even The Bucket List, starring A-listers Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman flopped.
But now Bale and the late Ledger ? who died aged 28 from an accidental drug overdose in January ? are set to bail out the Tinseltown titans, after rave critical reviews.
Welsh-born hunk Bale (34), said: ?This is going to be the most successful Caped Crusader film.?

Only three other films have broken the billion dollar mark; Titanic,The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and Pirates of the Caribbean:Dead Man?s Chest.
But the tragic death of Ledger ? whose performance as The Joker is so mesmerising he is being tipped to become only the sixth actor ever to win a posthumous Oscar nomination ? has fuelled huge interest in the movie.

Jack Nicholson, who played The Joker in 1989?s Batman, declared: ?Heath has taken him to a new level. I couldn?t tear my eyes away.?

I remember hearing about an Irish Paper that completely made up an interview with a Star Wars actor a couple of years ago. I can't remember which paper it was, though.
So yeah, just throwing that out there.

If anything its probably one of the papers we print!

Quote from: raleagh on Sat, 12 Jul  2008, 13:56
Jack Nicholson had this to say about Heath Ledger's portayal of The Joker:

"Heath has taken him to a new level.  I couldn't tear my eyes away."

Nicholson is being a good sport, his assessment is correct. Heath had nothing but respect for Jack's portrayal. It is clear to me that Ledger is the better of the two by a fair margin.

I havent seen TDK yet, all I've heard is the hype.
But I think it will go down to personal taste. Two different Jokers, in different era's in different types of films.

Theres a lot of 20 something people out there that Batman 89 is part of their childhood, and you cant just take that memory away in 2 and a half hours.
Batman 89 will always be with them and loved (including Jack) , just like the spectrim or commadore 64!!! lol

That may be so, but nostalgia can only go so far. Having been a fan of Batman (1989) and Jack's Joker, it is clear to me that Heath is superior. It is the best interpretation of the character in any medium. Ledger is the benchmark now. I don't see this being topped, ever. Good luck to the fellow who tries.

I bet that was said in 1989.

The thing is Heath Ledgers performance is fresh, new and exciting. In 20 years time we will see if it endures.

Jacks has lasted 20 years, and I beleive it will last another 20. No one dared attempted the Joker for nearley two decades on film. Thats some record.

Heath was fantastic. Nice to hear that Jack enjoyed it.

That was very gracious of Jack to say. I know the role of the Joker is one that Jack enjoyed playing immensely, and it's definately a sign of sincere respect for Jack to make a comment about Ledger's portrayal such as that.

Quote
The thing is Heath Ledgers performance is fresh, new and exciting. In 20 years time we will see if it endures.
Jacks has lasted 20 years, and I beleive it will last another 20. No one dared attempted the Joker for nearley two decades on film. Thats some record.

To true people are so wrapped in Heath's Joker and what he did to get into the role and act like Jack didn't even try. Jack has said himself that the role of the Joker was on of his top 3 favorites he has ever played and that he just loved the character and the role and is sad that he never got to play it a second time.

Quote from: Sandman on Thu, 31 Jul  2008, 08:12
Jack has said himself that the role of the Joker was on of his top 3 favorites he has ever played and that he just loved the character and the role

Well, so did Heath. He said it was the most fun he had in a role. It is to be expected, it is The Joker.

Quote from: Sandman on Thu, 31 Jul  2008, 08:12
and is sad that he never got to play it a second time.

Yeah, with Burton killing him off and all. Shame Ledger is not with us, too. It is ironic that though he survives in The Dark Knight, the character will not be reprised by the actor again anyway.

The more I think about it, I don't see a problem recasting Heath.

The story is bigger than the actor. The only problem is, since Heath's death he has endeared himself to fans - what actor would want to take that on?

Quote from: raleagh on Thu, 31 Jul  2008, 11:42
The more I think about it, I don't see a problem recasting Heath.

I do. Joker doesn't need to be recast. Not in this franchise. The Dark Knight's Joker casts a very long shadow indeed.

Quote from: raleagh on Thu, 31 Jul  2008, 11:42
The only problem is, since Heath's death he has endeared himself to fans - what actor would want to take that on?

Since I regard Ledger's Joker as the best interpretation in ANY medium, somebody very brave indeed. Before I saw the performance, I was more willing to say that the part could be recast... but Ledger's too good.

QuoteYeah, with Burton killing him off and all. Shame Ledger is not with us, too. It is ironic that though he survives in The Dark Knight, the character will not be reprised by the actor again anyway.

That's one of the thing's i didn't like. Jack's Joker was the stuff of legends and he died in the first movie never to return for a second exellent performance it's sad in many way fan's never got to see Jack return and as i said before jack was sad he never got to return to one of his beloved roles.

But no one can be to hard on Burton unlike Nolan who knew he had a sequal one board when he made his first movie, Burton didn't know how well his movie would do esp with most people's interpretation of Batman as "BOOM' and "WHAM" and not the dark film he made. So he didn't want to leave his movie open ended kinda sad now that everyone know's it's a classic.

Quote from: Sandman on Fri,  1 Aug  2008, 00:26

QuoteYeah, with Burton killing him off and all. Shame Ledger is not with us, too. It is ironic that though he survives in The Dark Knight, the character will not be reprised by the actor again anyway.

That's one of the thing's i didn't like. Jack's Joker was the stuff of legends and he died in the first movie never to return for a second exellent performance it's sad in many way fan's never got to see Jack return and as i said before jack was sad he never got to return to one of his beloved roles.

I read that Nicholson was going to reprise his role in a dream sequence in one of the films. That would have been cool.

You are right there i often wonder what the dream sequence would have been like. But it's still not as great as having Jack deam up with Burton's Penguin or Catwomen.

To be fair, I think Burton was looking to make a stand alone film and wasn't interested in a franchise.  Killing Joker, in terms of a stand alone film, worked for the story he told.

I think the Joker is one of those characters subject to multiple interpretations.  In looking at the character again from the O'Neil and Engelhardt comics, to The Dark Knight Returns, to the Killing Joke, to the more prankster version of the character in the neutered 50s comics--there's just so much one could take from when translating the character into another medium.

Look at Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson, Mark Hammil, Heath Ledger, even The Batman (cartoon) had a unique take on him.  It's tough for me to say 'Heath was better,' as they played two entirely different kind of characters, in somewhat different genres.

I do think Heath gave a performance of a lifetime, and whoever touches the character next has a whole lot to live up to. 

As for the comment?  Very class, Jack.  Very classy.

I think heath was great but ultimately I think Jack gets the nod and here's why;

-Jack had the look far more down pat (not heaths fault); hair and makeup looked more similar as did Jacks purple
-Jack had more prop gadgets which are a trademark of the Joker. I know it wasn't heavily influenced by comics but him frying someone with the handshake buzzer is classic Joker.
-Jacks motives were clearer; I still don't know is Heaths joker a master planner or an agent of random chaos? You'd think it would take quite a bit of planning to blow up a hospital or highjack two key boats or have dent and rachel kidnapped simutaneously.
-Jack played the character truer to 'the clown prince of crime'. Some people are afraid of clowns, the joker is supposed to extrapolate this fear. The only time the Joker gave the persona of a clown was in the mob meeting scene.
-the laughter; heaths laugh seemed far more random as though there was a quota in place as how often he had to do it. Jack did it at the appropriate time; while he is doing something gruesome
-the vulnerability factor. Other than when he takes steroids to do so, the Joker is not a physical threat; he rarely fights unless he has weapons or it's part of a plan and when he does he gets taken down easily; killing people with his bare hands or hand knives isn't overly part of the character unless they're tied up/cuffed or being held.

Quote from: riddler on Sun, 11 Aug  2013, 22:08
I think heath was great but ultimately I think Jack gets the nod and here's why;
-Jacks motives were clearer; I still don't know is Heaths joker a master planner or an agent of random chaos? You'd think it would take quite a bit of planning to blow up a hospital or highjack two key boats or have dent and rachel kidnapped simutaneously.

That's why I call that 'agent of chaos' excuse a load of BS - everything that Ledger's version does is calculating and meticulous. Whether he is anticipating the schoolbus to plow through the bank and killing his accomplice holding him at gunpoint, to unrealistically having a back-up plan to explode his way out of jail and take Lao with him, everything that this Joker does is based on planning.

Nicholson's Joker may not have a deep motive for his crimes, but he always came across as resembling the character like I remember in comics I read and cartoon I watched: a psychotic who takes glee in committing hideous crimes for his own amusement.

I really don't think we're supposed to take Joker's "Do I look like a guy with a plan?" speech any more seriously than his contradictory "Do you wanna know how I got these scars?" stories.  He's previously established as the most unreliable narrator when it comes to himself and, as all of you say, he clearly has a plan for everything he does in the movie.  In the context of that scene, he's manipulating Harvey (whether or not you buy him being able to do that is another story), so I've never interpreted the hospital scene as revealing any character insight into him so much as Joker trying to warp Harvey's sense of what's just and fair.

To me, Joker's true motives/plans are revealed by Batman in the final act.  That the madman wants to prove everyone out there can become as crazy as he is (which is exactly what he was doing, and succeeding, when talking to Harvey in the hospital and actually has nothing to do with "anarchy" or "chaos," despite his claims).  I see the TDK Joker as pretty much the Joker from The Killing Joke, but targeting all of Gotham City and not just Commissioner Gordon like in that comic.

So while the Joker's hospital speech is contradictory, I've always thought it was deliberately so.

Quote from: riddler on Sun, 11 Aug  2013, 22:08
I think heath was great but ultimately I think Jack gets the nod and here's why;

-Jack had the look far more down pat (not heaths fault); hair and makeup looked more similar as did Jacks purple
-Jack had more prop gadgets which are a trademark of the Joker. I know it wasn't heavily influenced by comics but him frying someone with the handshake buzzer is classic Joker.
-Jacks motives were clearer; I still don't know is Heaths joker a master planner or an agent of random chaos? You'd think it would take quite a bit of planning to blow up a hospital or highjack two key boats or have dent and rachel kidnapped simutaneously.
-Jack played the character truer to 'the clown prince of crime'. Some people are afraid of clowns, the joker is supposed to extrapolate this fear. The only time the Joker gave the persona of a clown was in the mob meeting scene.
-the laughter; heaths laugh seemed far more random as though there was a quota in place as how often he had to do it. Jack did it at the appropriate time; while he is doing something gruesome
-the vulnerability factor. Other than when he takes steroids to do so, the Joker is not a physical threat; he rarely fights unless he has weapons or it's part of a plan and when he does he gets taken down easily; killing people with his bare hands or hand knives isn't overly part of the character unless they're tied up/cuffed or being held.

Pretty much this. Take away the hype and Heath's Joker is only a pretentious anarchist who is only famous because he's calling himself Joker.

His plans may be mad, but to me Heath Joker does not seem like a totally unhinged guy who is an unreliable narrator. I'm positive he knows what he's saying. Such as leading the Chechen up the garden path only to have him cut up.

Jack Joker was straight up honest with people from his perspective. "I may be theatrical and maybe even a little rough" - yes, sir. Here's when his half truth comes in. "But one thing I am not, is a killer. I'm an artist."

Fighting wise, I've always thought Joker was well captured in the finale of B89.

Batman dominates him in the fight. Throws him against a bell and such and Joker, while hurt, keeps the gags flowing. Spitting out chattering teeth. Likely found humour in punching Batman's armour. Backs off from Batman to pull out glasses and makes quip. When Batman thinks it's all over, he's the one fighting for his life. And then he lends Vicki a hand.

That's why you can never underestimate him.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 15 Aug  2013, 00:10
His plans may be mad, but to me Heath Joker does not seem like a totally unhinged guy who is an unreliable narrator. I'm positive he knows what he's saying. Such as leading the Chechen up the garden path only to have him cut up.

Jack Joker was straight up honest with people from his perspective. "I may be theatrical and maybe even a little rough" - yes, sir. Here's when his half truth comes in. "But one thing I am not, is a killer. I'm an artist."

Fighting wise, I've always thought Joker was well captured in the finale of B89.

Batman dominates him in the fight. Throws him against a bell and such and Joker, while hurt, keeps the gags flowing. Spitting out chattering teeth. Likely found humour in punching Batman's armour. Backs off from Batman to pull out glasses and makes quip. When Batman thinks it's all over, he's the one fighting for his life. And then he lends Vicki a hand.

That's why you can never underestimate him.

I can live with the Joker having two different stories about the scars but his characters motives were all over the place; some things took heavy planning (also see the heist at the beginning or the escape from jail), yet he indicates he has no plans and is a dog chasing cars. Also he goes both ways on whether he wants Batman dead; kills people until Batman gives up his mask then blows up the hospital due to Reese threatening to out the batman.


I am also surprised by the lack of people who bring up the obvious plot hole of the dual kidnapping of Rachel and Harvey; there's no way the Joker could know that Batman would be allowed into the police station and the time it would happen no less. Then on top of it be able to make sure one lives and the other dies. They're in a police station with police looking for Harvey and Rachel; how'd he know there were no police in the vicinity of either of them which could have been easily radioed to? If Burton had any gaping plot hole of this manner, the Nolanites would be all over it yet nobody dare questions Nolan.

Granted. A lot of Joker's plot in TDK relied on every single thing falling perfectly into place without deviation. Some stuff he couldn't have possibly anticipated or timed to the last second. Merging with the school buses at the start, for example. And they don't seem to mind the fact a bus has emerged from a bank wall, and thus keep driving with no worries.

The convoy sequence is quite messy, plot wise. We're told the Joker wants to kill Dent, but he purposefully aims for everything except the truck. So, ok, perhaps he doesn't want to kill him, because he's delaying it.

As he fires on Dent, Batman jumps his car in the way. Did Joker expect this to happen or something? Because we then learn he really wants Dent alive because afterwards it was planned to kidnap him to "bring him down to our level". It's hard to make sense of it all, and the old 'he's the Joker, it makes sense to him' card doesn't wash. If the Tumbler didn't jump when it did, or was a second too late, his plan is over.

Joker's whole escape plan from jail came down to taking an officer hostage. He simple would not have escaped if he was left alone in there, with the officer watching from outside of the glass. It is stupid and just would not happen. Why would you be in there with him? He doesn't need to be. How would Joker know this would happen? He wouldn't. And in reality it wouldn't.

Just how he gets large volumes of explosives stored at Gotham Hospital without anyone knowing is beyond me. I don't believe it. It may make a cool explosion on film, but that's it. If you think too deep about it, it falls apart.

Also, with Jack's Joker and the topic of honesty. I can't let this comment go by without reference:

"I'm only laughing on the outside. My smile is just skin deep. If you could see inside I'm really crying. You might join me for a weep."
He then launches into his laughter and continues with his alter-ego, burying his pain.

I thought that Joker's characterization was messy, and what's worse is people reckon that it makes him deep, and it follows along the line of The Killing Joke. I disagree. I thought that the Joker in The Killing Joke was much more grounded than the one in The Dark Knight.

TKJ revolved around the Joker doing everything he can to psychologically torture Gordon, who is at no point able to take control of the traumatic situation. Joker simply believed that any sane person can be made crazy if their lives were turned upside down in a single night. While also hinting that the same thing happened to him, despite his claims of making up stories about his own past. His actions came within in limits and with reason.

In TDK though, it came to a point that it felt like he must have had psychic abilities to have things go his way, because as TDK (the user) and riddler mentioned there is no way he could have anticipated how things were turning out. That, or he benefited from atrocious writing:

[rant]
I for one can't get over how unrealistic and ludicrous that boat scene was. We go from people desperately trying to kill an accountant so the Joker wouldn't blow up a hospital in an earlier scene, to suddenly having two boats full of people - one carrying civilians and the other carrying prisoners - suddenly having the presence of mind to defy Joker by refusing to blow each other up?! Yet when we get to the third film, none of the prisoners show any signs of humanity when the truth about Dent is revealed, and instead go on a looting and killing spree after Bane releases them from jail.

[/rant]

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 15 Aug  2013, 08:27
I thought that Joker's characterization was messy, and what's worse is people reckon that it makes him deep, and it follows along the line of The Killing Joke. I disagree. I thought that the Joker in The Killing Joke was much more grounded than the one in The Dark Knight.

Simplicity is always deeper than 'complexity'. Seeing Jack's life before the transformation makes him more of a complete filmic character in my book. If you match up all the differences and similarities, it is interesting and valid.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 15 Aug  2013, 08:27
I for one can't get over how unrealistic and ludicrous that boat scene was.

I always thought this scene was a wasted opportunity in relation to Two-Face. Two boats with people from different ends of the spectrum, each with a detonator. Seemed like ripe material for him.

Glad they point out the '89 connexion.

Unrelated to my screenname (it's more a reference to my birth year; I'm definitely no Burton fanatic), I prefer Jack's Joker. I don't dislike Heath's performance or TDK, but there really wasn't any 'Joker' in his characterization, & honestly,  the inconsistency of the writing really got on my nerves. This is probably just going to end up sounding like me trashing The Dark Knight, but it isn't; as i said before, I don't resent the film. I'm just not a member of the Nolan/Ledger Cult, and here are a few reasons why (major rant about to ensue):

* "Madness is like gravity..." A cute line, except the character depicted in The Dark Knight wasn't "mad", or crazy, or anything else that would make for a good quote (or resemble The Joker character.) He was precise, calculating, and filled with nerd-rage... and not at all crazy. Jittery as hell and really, really pissed? Yes. Murderous? You bet. "Mad (as in 'a Mad Tea Party')"? No. Every one of his schemes (and long-winded speeches, for that matter) were, as many of you have pointed out, meticulously planned & executed - the work of a focused, scheming terrorist, not of a chaotic, fun-loving psycho, which you could call 'reinvention'... but it really isn't. It's just kind of ignoring the essence of the character, except for maybe a purple suit. Hell, the character they wrote for TDK was probably closer to Riddler than anything.

* Intimidation - It was as if TDK Joker's main priority was to try to scare & intimidate people rather than create chaos & disorder, despite his repeated claims. Where classic (comic book/nicholson) Joker's intimidation factor seemed to stem naturally from his grotesque appearance & unpredictability (& the fact that he actually created chaos rather than making speeches about it), TDK Joker went out of his way to be perceived as a monster with intentionally-smeared facepaint & forced cackling & growling.

* The stuff we don't see - The idea of a guy who's "crying inside" & smiles not by choice, but due to grotesque deformity (comic book/nicholson Joker), adds some depth & layering which makes the character far more interesting. Heath played him one-dimensionally: a pissed off, murderous attention whore who gives off the impression he's always been just that; nothing more, nothing less. I don't know if those embarrassing "Wanna know how I got these scars???" bits were supposed to add depth or mystery to the character, but they didn't; they were horribly written & added absolutely nothing to the movie but extra runtime (and obviously that wasn't Heath's fault, that one's on the screenwriters & Chris Nolan.)

* Meth: not even once - TDK Joker: too coke-y. or meth-y. or whatever the hell he was supposed to be on. Ritalin, maybe?

* TDK Joker's monologues praising "chaos", "anarchy" and "disorder" are ripped pretty much verbatim from The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, a 1933 German film. Again - director & screenwriters at fault here, not Heath; I just thought it was lame of them to do that.

* Heath's performance (though likeable) is one we've seen a million times before. People sh*t all over Jack for "playing himself" - & to some degree, they're right; after watching something like The Shining, i don't think Jack's Joker was all that it could have been. But when it comes down to it, the Joker he played was one-of-a-kind, done as only Jack could do him; Heath's Joker is just about everywhere when you go back & look. Alex Delarge, Hannibal Lector, Brad Dourif's character in Exorcist 3... i needn't mention the now-famous Tom Waits interview. Hell, Heath's growling, facial expressions and stringy, greasy hair were straight up Jack Torrance material (I've always found that pretty ironic.)

* "JACKS JOKER WAS TOO CAMPY" - TDK fanatics - People seem unable to distinguish his dark humor from "camp". And that's precisely where Jack excelled & Heath missed - that balance of light & dark. As silly as Jack's Joker sometimes got, my feeling is that Heath's, though nastier, was actually much sillier & less macabre (sort of like DeVito's Penguin, in a way), but it's generally hailed as being much darker & intense than it was, due to the relentlessly violent & sludgy tone of TDK. He was too heavy on the stagey artifice and cartoony affectations - the lip-licking, the growling, the Tom Waits voice - & though i like his acting very much in general & salute his dedication to his 'transformation', his performance was mostly made up of those exaggerated affectations.

^ Agreed with just about everything you said. But I'll add another thing about the Joker's psychological profile that I've noticed not just in Batman '89, but also in the animated series and some of the comics I've read. He has an enormous ego. Generally, I've always seen him as someone who takes great pride of himself, and enjoys to get all the attention. He gets violently jealous if somebody else steals his spotlight in the media and attacks anyone who becomes more successful than he is at trying to kill Batman. And of course, he gets upset if nobody gets his "jokes" to the point he kills them because of it.

I don't see much of that in Ledger's Joker. He doesn't give a damn about his own appearance, and the film never really shows us his egotistical side. People say that he stays true that he doesn't really want to kill Batman, but I find that very hard to believe because he looks like he is trying his hardest every time the two of them fight each other.

Quote* Heath's performance (though likeable) is one we've seen a million times before. People sh*t all over Jack for "playing himself" - & to some degree, they're right; after watching something like The Shining, i don't think Jack's Joker was all that it could have been. But when it comes down to it, the Joker he played was one-of-a-kind, done as only Jack could do him; Heath's Joker is just about everywhere when you go back & look. Alex Delarge, Hannibal Lector, Brad Dourif's character in Exorcist 3... i needn't mention the now-famous Tom Waits interview. Hell, the facials and hairdo were straight up Jack Torrance material.

For all the talk about how "scary" Ledger's Joker is, I don't find him anywhere near as compelling as Hannibal Lector or John Doe in Seven. Look at John Doe for instance. He is a serial killer who targets his victims based on the seven deadly sins. Now like Ledger's Joker, we don't know anything much about him i.e. his past, his real name. But unlike Ledger's Joker. we have an understanding why he is committing atrocious murders - he is a delusional, self-righteous lunatic who believes he is killing in the name of God and he believes it's his duty to make a statement against society's tolerance of sinful behavior. That's what makes John Doe an intriguing and scary character, in my opinion, and in comparison that's why I can't take Ledger's Joker seriously. His Joker talks a lot, but I find everything he says as rather shallow because of the contradictory script. He would've been a lot more believable and interesting if he actually was depicted as a realistic serial killer without the ridiculously convoluted planning. It might have made the film a more violent experience, and may have come closer at getting an R18 rating, but at least it would've been more successful at trying to achieve a more "realistic" Batman movie.

Quote"JACKS JOKER WAS TOO CAMPY" - TDK fanatics - People seem unable to distinguish his dark humor from "camp". And

If they thought Nicholson's Joker was campy, then I wonder what do they think of Hamill's Joker? I'm not saying Hamill was campy (whatever the hell that means), but surely his take has much more in common with Nicholson than Ledger's.

It's a different take and all that - but Ledger's Joker is not the clown prince of crime. He just does not fit that description at all. And that is a very important aspect of the character right there. Sure, Joker is a killer, but he's not just a cold assassin wearing a purple jacket and makeup taking on the image of a clown. He *is* a clown.

I don't believe for a second Ledger's Joker is a totally unhinged guy or an unreliable narrator. Everything he does in the movie, no matter how impossible, is all planned out. Nothing is off the cuff. He's relatively unemotional, and as a result, he doesn't flip out randomly ala Nicholson's shooting of Bob in B89. Chatting to a burnt corpse, or drifting off into madness while sitting alone in the dark - in the chair of the guy he just gunned down.

Tonally, TDK's Joker is all one way. He may live for chaos, but he's simply not "doing things" as he suggests. Sure, The Joker is a liar, as in the comics, but there's zero ambiguity as far as his motives are concerned. Nolan tried to have his cake and eat it too here, but it just didn't work.

People these days are frightfully afraid of 'camp', even with characters like The Joker. It must automatically equal terrible. Well, that's just rubbish. The Joker is a flamboyant showman - loud and proud. The laughter, gadgets and brightness, when emphasised, just make the murder and mayhem seem all the more darker.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 14:06
It's a different take and all that - but Ledger's Joker is not the clown prince of crime. He just does not fit that description at all. And that is a very important aspect of the character right there. Sure, Joker is a killer, but he's not just a cold assassin wearing a purple jacket and makeup taking on the image of a clown. He *is* a clown.

I don't believe for a second Ledger's Joker is a totally unhinged guy or an unreliable narrator. Everything he does in the movie, no matter how impossible, is all planned out. Nothing is off the cuff. He's relatively unemotional, and as a result, he doesn't flip out randomly ala Nicholson's shooting of Bob in B89. Chatting to a burnt corpse, or drifting off into madness while sitting alone in the dark - in the chair of the guy he just gunned down.

Tonally, TDK's Joker is all one way. He may live for chaos, but he's simply not "doing things" as he suggests. Sure, The Joker is a liar, as in the comics, but there's zero ambiguity as far as his motives are concerned. Nolan tried to have his cake and eat it too here, but it just didn't work.

People these days are frightfully afraid of 'camp', even with characters like The Joker. It must automatically equal terrible. Well, that's just rubbish. The Joker is a flamboyant showman - loud and proud. The laughter, gadgets and brightness, when emphasised, just make the murder and mayhem seem all the more darker.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

One thing I didn't like about Ledger was the police station scene with Batman in which he acts like he and Batman are the same. They're not, They're supposed to be polar opposites; one is a direct contrast to the other. Batman is all business, Joker is a clown.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 14:06
It's a different take and all that - but Ledger's Joker is not the clown prince of crime. He just does not fit that description at all. And that is a very important aspect of the character right there. Sure, Joker is a killer, but he's not just a cold assassin wearing a purple jacket and makeup taking on the image of a clown. He *is* a clown.

I don't believe for a second Ledger's Joker is a totally unhinged guy or an unreliable narrator. Everything he does in the movie, no matter how impossible, is all planned out. Nothing is off the cuff. He's relatively unemotional, and as a result, he doesn't flip out randomly ala Nicholson's shooting of Bob in B89. Chatting to a burnt corpse, or drifting off into madness while sitting alone in the dark - in the chair of the guy he just gunned down.

Tonally, TDK's Joker is all one way. He may live for chaos, but he's simply not "doing things" as he suggests. Sure, The Joker is a liar, as in the comics, but there's zero ambiguity as far as his motives are concerned. Nolan tried to have his cake and eat it too here, but it just didn't work.

People these days are frightfully afraid of 'camp', even with characters like The Joker. It must automatically equal terrible. Well, that's just rubbish. The Joker is a flamboyant showman - loud and proud. The laughter, gadgets and brightness, when emphasised, just make the murder and mayhem seem all the more darker.

A very perceptive post as always TDK. I couldn't agree more.

If you don't mind me asking, I couldn't help but notice how you used to have a very high regard for Ledger's Joker judging by the very first few comments you made years ago in this thread. Now that your stance has since changed, is it obvious to say that while you still admire Ledger's performance to an extent, the film in general didn't hold up for you after multiple viewings?

Quote from: riddler on Sun, 10 Aug  2014, 13:00
One thing I didn't like about Ledger was the police station scene with Batman in which he acts like he and Batman are the same. They're not, They're supposed to be polar opposites; one is a direct contrast to the other. Batman is all business, Joker is a clown.

True. I also thought that Joker dressed up as a nurse as he leaves the exploding hospital to be a big missed opportunity for him to do something clownish. I could always imagine the traditional Joker singing or doing an outrageous dance while making his way to safety, probably to the tune of something like "What a Wonderful World" or something.  ;D

Instead, Joker just walks his way out of there, slaps the detonator a little bit to get the bombs to continue working and then leaves with a dead set (no pun intended) serious expression on his face. Underwhelming.  >:(

Off topic, one of the first few things I had problems with the way Joker looked in this movie was how he looked like one of those heavy metal singers who used to wear makeup back in the early 2000s, like this one below. I remember when I saw the first picture of Ledger in makeup that I confused him for someone like this:

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.madeinthepain.com%2Fwp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F02%2FMudvayne-Dig-Kud_002.jpg&hash=5e75fc8a44e9d89a581189017b6874282b91667c)

I'm not saying that Nolan was inspired by this look, but I'm pointing out that the Joker's new look didn't look anything clownish, in my opinion.

QuoteIf you don't mind me asking, I couldn't help but notice how you used to have a very high regard for Ledger's Joker judging by the very first few comments you made years ago in this thread. Now that your stance has since changed, is it obvious to say that while you still admire Ledger's performance to an extent, the film in general didn't hold up for you after multiple viewings?

I know the question wasn't directed at me but I'll give my perspective. I was blown away by the dark knight when I first saw it. At first I thought it beat the burton films and then some. But once you see a film more than once, the flaws become more apparent; the action scenes were poorly shot, Bale is weak in his role, plot holes add up (for instance the Jokers break into wayne manor abruptly ending or his unfeasable plan to ensure either Rachel or Dent die), the Joker was too invincible, the fact that there were many aspects which were not true to the source material and scenes dragged on. Especially after seeing the Dark Knight rises the weak points to Nolans film making were exposed, I tend to notice the negatives more when seeing this film. Especially with batman 89, you really need to nitpick to find flaws there, they aren't apparent.

I rememeber when I was arguing with a Nolan fan. I told him/her that I liked Jack better mainly because Heath was too bland and serious about anarchy and chaos. The reply: "You think the Joker's supposed to be funny?"

I stopped at that point. Of course the Joker's supposed to be funny as well as a cruel killer, that's what makes him the Clown Prince of Crime...  ::)

With respect to the joker and the hospital scene, I prefer when he's either clowning around while making serious crimes or simply taking it in as another day at the office. It should have been done one of two ways

1) have Ledger dancing around or motioning/miming maybe singing "London bridge is falling down"
2) have ledger act natural, ie. whistling to himself, perhaps eating or drinking, maybe ask a casual question to a bystander ie "do you think it will rain later?", heck even ask someone for marshmallows but Ledger basically did nothing but cringe.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 10 Aug  2014, 14:51
If you don't mind me asking, I couldn't help but notice how you used to have a very high regard for Ledger's Joker judging by the very first few comments you made years ago in this thread. Now that your stance has since changed, is it obvious to say that while you still admire Ledger's performance to an extent, the film in general didn't hold up for you after multiple viewings?

Yes. The performance itself is good, but the characterisation itself is not my cup of tea. 2005-2008 marked a Batman revival not just for the brand, but for me. Nolan's are not completely abysmal films, per se, but taking a step back made me see the forest for the trees.

I know people will roll their eyes for what I'm about to say(maybe not here, but I do get it all the time), is the makeup/perma white still bugs me so much. And let me just say, as far as aesthetics go, I actually like the look of Heath's Joker, even though I feel he's out of place in Nolan's Gotham. I remember the first pic we got of Heath in the virals, I was stoked about the direction they were going in....and then we found out he wears makeup to become The Joker.

To me, this is one of the worst decisions they could have made. And what was the idea around it? Because it's more "realistic"? One of the key aspects of The Joker, is that he can't escape who he is. You always hear the comparisons of Batman and The Joker as having a "ying yang" relationship, and it's absolutely true. And in this case, the makeup completely throws that aspect of their relationship out the window. Like I said, The Joker can't escape looking like a clown. He would so desperately love to be normal, but he can't, and it's one of the driving forces around his insanity. Whereas on the flip side of things, Batman can easily escape who he is and become normal, but he chooses not to. Basically, The Joker can't take off his mask, even though he would love to, while Batman can take off his mask, but chooses not to. Hence, the "ying yang" relationship.

*but in Nolan's movies, Batman does seek a normal life by "taking off his mask", so I guess that aspect of Batman is wrong, too? Bah, so many fumbled characterizations with these movies.

Yep, that's right.

The Nolan Joker loophole is the facial scarring which he cannot take off. But it doesn't work in the same way. Case in point during Loeb's funeral parade where Ledger fits in with everybody else and even gets a plum position near the front. Plot convenience or not - nobody notices his disfigured face. In comparison, B89 Joker uses flesh colored make-up to cover his appearance - but it doesn't fool anybody. The grin is still the same and his identity is obvious, although less jarring. That's the price of being The Joker.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 13:12
Yep, that's right.

The Nolan Joker loophole is the facial scarring which he cannot take off. But it doesn't work in the same way. Case in point during Loeb's funeral parade where Ledger fits in with everybody else and even gets a plum position near the front. Plot convenience or not - nobody notices his disfigured face. In comparison, B89 Joker uses flesh colored make-up to cover his appearance - but it doesn't fool anybody. The grin is still the same and his identity is obvious, although less jarring. That's the price of being The Joker.

I remember reading someone's blog that his reasoning for not liking TDK's Joker was because it was a complete departure from the "cognitive dissonance" surrounding the contrast between the Joker and Batman. He claims that Joker's traditionally clownish look seems harmless. Some people may disagree with this, but this guy argues that most people tend to hold the idea that clowns are harmless and Joker's traditional demeanor, with the permawhite skin and goofy smile made him unpredictable and underestimating. One could initially mistaken him for a clown who could merely entertain children without realizing he is actually someone who could hack you to death for laughs. Sort of like how Jack's Joker amuses that kid before killing that mobster in front of City Hall .

Whereas when we look at Batman though, people may assume him to be evil and dangerous because how he looks demonic, which is why everyone in film, TV and comics tend to be alarmed by his presence. But instead, Batman is actually a force of good fighting against the evils like the Joker who are terrorizing Gotham.

Basically, if you were to look at the traditional Joker for the first time, just standing there smiling but not doing anything else, you probably wouldn't have guessed that he could be a psychotic villain. With Ledger's Joker though, it's not so surprising, because he looks too deranged with those scars on his face.

It seems like a simple analysis but it's kinda true, at least I reckon.

Exactly, just like Rolf Harris, now outed as a child sex offender, broadcasting himself as a sweet, funny/cuddly man when his deeds were disturbing in contrast.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_MFz0z7jVEKU%2FTN1pz3li6BI%2FAAAAAAAACY8%2FwxdLL7Eaz6c%2Fs400%2FJokerBoner%2BJokersNewestBoner%2Bon%2BRadio.gif&hash=fdfac16b4f32154abbac6872710f1178c826e08e)

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi710.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww109%2FMorrisonBatman%2FDetective031.jpg&hash=d334b544cbc27ad6622f27bbdca8b3b02cd6a696)


I see what you mean, Laughing Fish.

Oh boy, this thread's gotten very one sided :-[. I thought Ledger was excellent as the Joker. It's not a matter of one performance being better than the other, and it doesn't really bother me if the majority of people disagree with my own opinion. I like Nicholson and Ledger in the role. So I'll try and defend Ledger's performance, just as I would if everyone started slagging off Nicholson's.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 08:34
I don't see much of that in Ledger's Joker. He doesn't give a damn about his own appearance, and the film never really shows us his egotistical side.

Over the years many comic artists have drawn the Joker as looking dishevelled and unkempt. It's been taken to extremes during the New 52 with the whole Leatherface-Joker thing (which, for the record, I'm not a fan of).


But even if you look at earlier stories like Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth (1989), can you honestly say McKean's Joker doesn't look more like Ledger's Joker than Nicholson's?


Nicholson's Joker may have the more classic Pre-Crisis look, but the appearance of Ledger's Joker isn't totally removed from the source material either. The Joker isn't always scruffy and unkempt in the comics, but he isn't always a pristine narcissist either. The more nihilistic portrayals of the Joker tend to be the messier ones, as the notion of sartorial/cosmetic order is contrary to his philosophy of chaos and disorder.

Quote from: riddler on Sun, 10 Aug  2014, 13:00
One thing I didn't like about Ledger was the police station scene with Batman in which he acts like he and Batman are the same. They're not, They're supposed to be polar opposites; one is a direct contrast to the other. Batman is all business, Joker is a clown.

But beneath the outer differences, there is an underlying similarity. Yes they're opposites - but they're opposite sides of the same coin. That's what Alan Moore was getting at with the joke about the two escaped inmates in The Killing Joke. And I'm fairly certain it's what Burton was getting at with his "duel of the freaks" analogy. Batman and the Joker are two extremes acting outside of the law. One of them seeks to restore order, the other to upset it. But they're both equally nuts in their own way. The difference is that the Joker can see how absurd they both are, whereas Batman can't.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 10 Aug  2014, 14:51True. I also thought that Joker dressed up as a nurse as he leaves the exploding hospital to be a big missed opportunity for him to do something clownish. I could always imagine the traditional Joker singing or doing an outrageous dance while making his way to safety, probably to the tune of something like "What a Wonderful World" or something.  ;D

Instead, Joker just walks his way out of there, slaps the detonator a little bit to get the bombs to continue working and then leaves with a dead set (no pun intended) serious expression on his face. Underwhelming.  >:(

Quote from: riddler on Sun, 10 Aug  2014, 19:26
With respect to the joker and the hospital scene, I prefer when he's either clowning around while making serious crimes or simply taking it in as another day at the office. It should have been done one of two ways

1) have Ledger dancing around or motioning/miming maybe singing "London bridge is falling down"
2) have ledger act natural, ie. whistling to himself, perhaps eating or drinking, maybe ask a casual question to a bystander ie "do you think it will rain later?", heck even ask someone for marshmallows but Ledger basically did nothing but cringe.

That's actually one of my favourite moments in the film. I thought Ledger played the scene perfectly. That and the moment where he cleans his hands with disinfectant before leaving the hospital. He'll happily bloody his hands slicing people's faces open with a knife and mutilating their corpses, but he'll take time to disinfect his hands after visiting a sick patient. Little moments like that added a nice layer of black humour to his performance. They're more subtle and less frequent than Nicholson's antics, but no less funny IMO. If he'd started dancing or singing, it would have been overkill. That might work for Nicholson's Joker, but not Ledger's.

What I always find funny about the explosion scene is that the Joker isn't really frightened or worried when the final blast goes off. He just pretends to be. Even though there's nobody watching him, he'll play the fool to get the most out of the moment. That's classic Joker right there.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30* "Madness is like gravity..." A cute line, except the character depicted in The Dark Knight wasn't "mad", or crazy, or anything else that would make for a good quote (or resemble The Joker character.) He was precise, calculating, and filled with nerd-rage... and not at all crazy. Jittery as hell and really, really pissed? Yes. Murderous? You bet. "Mad (as in 'a Mad Tea Party')"? No. Every one of his schemes (and long-winded speeches, for that matter) were, as many of you have pointed out, meticulously planned & executed - the work of a focused, scheming terrorist, not of a chaotic, fun-loving psycho, which you could call 'reinvention'...

You could say the exact same thing about the Nicholson Joker. He was incredibly meticulous in his plans, especially if you read Hamm's original script. He plotted the murders of the mob bosses who opposed him, consolidated all their resources into a single organisation (Nicholson's Joker is actually a businessman amongst other things), unearthed a secret nerve toxin from the CIA, broke it down into a compound poison, contaminated thousands of hygiene and cosmetic products, poisoned almost the entire GCPD, and timed the poison so it would kick in just as he was crashing the unveiling of the bicentennial statue (see Hamm's script for this subplot), repeatedly hijacked the city's TV signals for his own illegal broadcasts, mass produced counterfeit banknotes with which to lure the public to his parade, and staged a massive street party that even the city council couldn't match.

Insanity doesn't necessarily mean diminished intellect. It would take a genius to pull off what Nicholson and Ledger's Jokers did, but it would take a madman to actually want to do those things.   

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30* TDK Joker's monologues praising "chaos", "anarchy" and "disorder" are ripped pretty much verbatim from The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, a 1933 German film. Again - director & screenwriters at fault here, not Heath; I just thought it was lame of them to do that.

I don't see that as a flaw. Nolan's cited his fondness for Fritz Lang many times. And as a fan of classic cinema, I like it when filmmakers reference their influences. There are plenty of ideas/images/lines of dialogue in Burton's films that are lifted from earlier movies. Connecting those dots adds an extra layer of fun for film buffs looking for intertextual readings.

Quote from: riddler on Sun, 10 Aug  2014, 19:04Especially with batman 89, you really need to nitpick to find flaws there, they aren't apparent.

We should discuss the flaws in Batman Returns sometime. I've spotted a lot of them the last few times I've watched it. But I'll save that for another thread. Bottom line, every film has flaws. If you want to find them, you will. The question is, are the flaws really so apparent that they outweigh the merits and spoil your enjoyment of the film. In the case of The Dark Knight, my answer to that question would be no.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sun, 10 Aug  2014, 19:06
I rememeber when I was arguing with a Nolan fan. I told him/her that I liked Jack better mainly because Heath was too bland and serious about anarchy and chaos. The reply: "You think the Joker's supposed to be funny?"

I stopped at that point. Of course the Joker's supposed to be funny as well as a cruel killer, that's what makes him the Clown Prince of Crime...  ::)

Can you cite any funny Joker moments from The Killing Joke or The Dark Knight Returns? If not, does that make them poor representations of the character?

I'm not saying your preference for a funny Joker is wrong, but it is a subjective thing. I know people who love the sixties Batman and don't like Nicholson's Joker because he's too violent. Again, that's fair enough. Different strokes, and all that. But it doesn't mean any portrayal of the Joker that's less humorous than Cesar Romero's is automatically invalid.

Quote from: Travesty on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 12:36Like I said, The Joker can't escape looking like a clown. He would so desperately love to be normal, but he can't, and it's one of the driving forces around his insanity.

I respectfully disagree with this. I don't think the Joker would ever choose to be normal. Not once his mind has snapped. Quite the opposite in fact, he'd try and change everyone else to drag them down to his level. Hence why he leaves his victims with a grotesque likeness of his own monstrous grin.

Quote from: Travesty on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 12:36*but in Nolan's movies, Batman does seek a normal life by "taking off his mask", so I guess that aspect of Batman is wrong, too? Bah, so many fumbled characterizations with these movies.

Batman also wanted to quit and settle down with Selina at the end of Batman Returns. And he took his mask off in plain sight of one of his enemies. So I guess Burton messed up too.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 13:12
The Nolan Joker loophole is the facial scarring which he cannot take off. But it doesn't work in the same way. Case in point during Loeb's funeral parade where Ledger fits in with everybody else and even gets a plum position near the front. Plot convenience or not - nobody notices his disfigured face.

I think that was just to suit the demands of the scene, similar to how nobody noticed the Joker's grin when he disguised himself as a policeman during his debut story.


In real life, a guy who looked like this could not blend into a crowd unnoticed. His 'smile' is as permanent as Nicholson's Joker.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 13:12In comparison, B89 Joker uses flesh colored make-up to cover his appearance - but it doesn't fool anybody.

It fooled all those people who attended the parade. And while Rotelli noticed there was something off about his grin, no one questioned his complexion. Which renders the permawhite issue moot - both Joker's could effectively conceal their white skin. Neither of them could fully conceal their smiles.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 13:34
I remember reading someone's blog that his reasoning for not liking TDK's Joker was because it was a complete departure from the "cognitive dissonance" surrounding the contrast between the Joker and Batman.

The idea behind the aesthetic dichotomy is sound, but it doesn't work in practice. Batman is dressed like something that should terrify, yet he appears dashing and noble. The Joker is dressed like something that should amuse, and yet he's creepy and sinister. And it's been that way since they first clashed back in 1940.

I'd also like to point out that Ledger's Joker addressed certain aspects of the character that were emphasised in the comics after the 1989 film, and as such managed to cover new ground without simply rehashing what Nicholson did. For example, the concept of 'super-sanity' which was hinted at in The Killing Joke with the Joker's line about multiple choice origins...


...and which was then explored in greater depth in Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth.


To me, that matches the psychological profile of Ledger's Joker: an inconsistent, manipulative liar who changes his mind on a whim and kills with cavalier abandon. He doesn't crack many jokes or use pranks to kill people; neither did the original Joker in the early Kane/Finger run. He's a serial killer in a purple suit who mainly uses knives, guns and poison to kill his victims, and who tries to frighten the people of Gotham by announcing his crimes in advance; again, just like the original Kane/Finger Joker. I think Ledger's Joker essentially is the original Joker from Batman #1, except with some of the more complex psychological components of the Modern Age Joker.

Batman characters have been reinterpreted in a wide and diverse number of ways. We often invoke this truism to defend Tim Burton's portrayal of Batman and the Penguin, and I think we should extend the same open-mindedness to Nolan's characters. Otherwise we risk descending into fanboyism, where we make allowances for our favourite interpretations that we then deny to others.

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 17:43
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_MFz0z7jVEKU%2FTN1pz3li6BI%2FAAAAAAAACY8%2FwxdLL7Eaz6c%2Fs400%2FJokerBoner%2BJokersNewestBoner%2Bon%2BRadio.gif&hash=fdfac16b4f32154abbac6872710f1178c826e08e)

Ah, 'The Joker's Comedy of Errors' – or as it's more commonly known amongst fans, 'The Joker's Boner Crimes'. I've been meaning to start a thread about that issue over on the comic boards. It warrants serious analysis by the comic scholars on this site.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 22:53
I respectfully disagree with this. I don't think the Joker would ever choose to be normal. Not once his mind has snapped. Quite the opposite in fact, he'd try and change everyone else to drag them down to his level. Hence why he leaves his victims with a grotesque likeness of his own monstrous grin.

I'd say you're both right.

The Joker probably wants to be 'normal' per se, a life before the chemical bath with his wife - if that backstory is to be believed. But realises he cannot go back. Thus launches full steam ahead into oblivion. The Joker's (the user) signature says it pretty well, I think:

"Imagination is a quality given a man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humour was provided to console him for what he is."

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 22:53
Batman also wanted to quit and settle down with Selina at the end of Batman Returns. And he took his mask off in plain sight of one of his enemies. So I guess Burton messed up too.

This is true, however entertaining the idea and actually going through with it, directionally, is a different thing altogether. The fact he wants happiness, but is destined to suffer alone, benefits the film.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 22:53
In real life, a guy who looked like this could not blend into a crowd unnoticed. His 'smile' is as permanent as Nicholson's Joker.

And as we know, Nolan's series loves real life. But it's not what is presented. He does blend into the crowd un-noticed.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 22:53
It fooled all those people who attended the parade. And while Rotelli noticed there was something off about his grin, no one questioned his complexion. Which renders the permawhite issue moot - both Joker's could effectively conceal their white skin. Neither of them could fully conceal their smiles.

I don't think his TV broadcast fooled the people attending the B89 parade. I think that was pure greed, the prospect of cash being dumped on the streets. Everybody knew Joker was the one on TV.

It does raise inteserting thoughts, though. Is Nicholson Joker, or any of them for that matter, putting on a purple jacket any really different than Ledger putting on makeup? I think the makeup lends the 'getting into character' connotation a lot more. Ledger's Joker has to go one step further to become that white face, red lipped image.

Bravo, Silver.

Look, I'm anti-Dark Knight almost as much as the next Burtonite (actually, anti-Nolanite, in truth), but the one thing about the film I could never deride and never pick on is Ledger. And it isn't because he died. Do I think he would have gotten that Oscar had he lived? Not really, but from the first time I saw the film, despite how much I disliked other elements of the film and its world... I adored his Joker, and was rather shocked that I did.

Despite the changes to the atypical portrayal of the character, Ledger still managed to capture the essence of the Clown Prince... something that I don't think other performers in the Nolan films managed to do. Ledger was on another level with that performance in that he was limited by having to play by Nolan's stripped-down rules and he still managed to nail the character's core.

Do I prefer Nicholson? I suppose... but it's not for any reason other than my appreciation of a more direct adaptation. But Silver is right.... to pick on Nolan for his faithfulness is one-sided when Burton and Schumacher took their own liberties. I only ever made a stink about Nolan's inaccuracies in the face of extreme anti-Burtonism. In truth, I have only ever been anti-Nolan in the face of Nolanism. To me, the films are just as welcome as Tim's or Joel's, and are no less valid. A film's plot holes are one thing (and TDK/TDKR have plenty), but it's creative choices are another. I will poke fun at the overwrought dialogue all day long, but the Joker not using a smling poison? Ain't no thang.

And especially since the comparisons are over and the heat has come back off of the Burton films (If anything, it seems like Burton love is on the resurgence)? Let the anti-Nolanism go. I have. "It just doesn't... hurt so bad anymore. You can understand that, can't you?"

Ledger was phenominal. Nicholson was phenominal. Anyone who refuses to give Nicholson his due isn't a true Batfan, so let Ledger's performance live on without scorn. In the end, Jack stands on his own and doesn't need defending anymore. If anything, Ledger will need defending when the next iteration comes around.

I don't have a problem with people praising Ledger, I think he deserves most of it, I don't like it when people hate on Jack's Joker just to make his Joker look better.

I can definitely understand why you don't like the New 52 Joker, Silver. That design really does look like sh*t, even worse than the Glasgow smiles. It only gives me a reminder why I don't generally read today's comics.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 22:53
But beneath the outer differences, there is an underlying similarity. Yes they're opposites - but they're opposite sides of the same coin. That's what Alan Moore was getting at with the joke about the two escaped inmates in The Killing Joke. And I'm fairly certain it's what Burton was getting at with his "duel of the freaks" analogy. Batman and the Joker are two extremes acting outside of the law. One of them seeks to restore order, the other to upset it. But they're both equally nuts in their own way. The difference is that the Joker can see how absurd they both are, whereas Batman can't.

The thing with Nolan's Batman though is I don't get this character at all. He definitely does a lot of stuff that is rather questionable, like driving cars that cause collateral damage and picks and chooses who he kills...but at the same time he's trying to find a way where he can no longer be Batman ever again, where he can live a normal life. Burton's Batman is tempted by that chance towards the end of Batman Returns, sure. But Catwoman deprived him the opportunity. Whereas, by the end of Rises, Bruce fakes his death as both Bruce Wayne and Batman and puts his close few friends under such unnecessary grief to escape with another woman he barely knows.

You know what, the guy has issues after all.  ;)

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 22:53
That's actually one of my favourite moments in the film. I thought Ledger played the scene perfectly. That and the moment where he cleans his hands with disinfectant before leaving the hospital. He'll happily bloody his hands slicing people's faces open with a knife and mutilating their corpses, but he'll take time to disinfect his hands after visiting a sick patient. Little moments like that added a nice layer of black humour to his performance. They're more subtle and less frequent than Nicholson's antics, but no less funny IMO. If he'd started dancing or singing, it would have been overkill. That might work for Nicholson's Joker, but not Ledger's.

What I always find funny about the explosion scene is that the Joker isn't really frightened or worried when the final blast goes off. He just pretends to be. Even though there's nobody watching him, he'll play the fool to get the most out of the moment. That's classic Joker right there.

To each their own I suppose, but I'd argue that the only classic Joker moment in the film was right at the end of the penthouse scene - when he remarked "Very poor choice of words!" as he pushes Rachel off the balcony right after Batman ordered him to let her go. That to me was the only time Ledger was playing a character that resembled anything like the Joker...and ironically, it's a moment where I rarely see anyone else, even the film's biggest fans, ever mention. But apart from that, I honestly felt that all those other scenes involving the Joker, like the hospital one, felt flat and didn't see the humour in there at all.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 22:53
We should discuss the flaws in Batman Returns sometime. I've spotted a lot of them the last few times I've watched it. But I'll save that for another thread. Bottom line, every film has flaws. If you want to find them, you will. The question is, are the flaws really so apparent that they outweigh the merits and spoil your enjoyment of the film. In the case of The Dark Knight, my answer to that question would be no.

Batman Returns definitely had a lot of crazy absurd stuff, like the Penguin having a blueprint to the Batmobile, how nobody else in the apartment complex notices Selina Kyle having a mental breakdown nor were there any witnesses to her near death experience, and penguins marching down an empty street without anyone near in sight. Those are off the top of my head, and for what it's worth I can tell that Burton's first had its share of plot holes too. But I do believe the semi-comedic tone helped viewers to tolerate the plot holes; it's a comic fantasy where we can suspend our disbelief that this is a stage where fantastic and crazy things can happen in this world. Does that mean the plot holes should be excused? No, of course not. But at least the film's tone helps us to suspend our belief easier.

Now we already discussed our opposite views to each other about The Dark Knight before, so there's no need for me to rehash mine in great detail again. But I do believe one film's plot holes and inconsistent writing can be more egregious than the other, especially if the film wants you to take it seriously. It's one thing for Batman to say something something out-of-character like "Wrong on both counts" to Catwoman after what he's done to criminals (and I agree with you - there is a contradiction there), but it becomes an issue where his moral conflict against a heinous threat like Joker is undermined by the fact that he was responsible for deaths to other villains before and after the fact. Hell, some villains he killed were no more dangerous than Joker was, and yet Batman still kept him alive despite it would endanger the rest of they city. And when the film takes itself so seriously like TDK does, those problems stick out like sore thumbs.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 22:53
Can you cite any funny Joker moments from The Killing Joke or The Dark Knight Returns? If not, does that make them poor representations of the character?

I'm not saying your preference for a funny Joker is wrong, but it is a subjective thing. I know people who love the sixties Batman and don't like Nicholson's Joker because he's too violent. Again, that's fair enough. Different strokes, and all that. But it doesn't mean any portrayal of the Joker that's less humorous than Cesar Romero's is automatically invalid.

Although Joker had many dark moments in those stories, he still used clownish gimmicks to kill people i.e. laughing/smiling gas (althoug moreso in TDKR than TKJ). It doesn't make the gruesome situation any more funny at all, but at least those stories keep his cartoonish trademark antics. Whereas Nolan's film replaces all of that with those annoying Glasgow smiles done off-screen, which makes it less suspenseful in my opinion.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 22:53
Batman also wanted to quit and settle down with Selina at the end of Batman Returns. And he took his mask off in plain sight of one of his enemies. So I guess Burton messed up too.

Fair point, but I think the reason why people complained about Batman wanting to retire throughout Nolan's series was because his love for Rachel was a factor in him hanging up the cape for good. So I guess for some people, it felt like his heart was really in it in the first place because if Bruce isn't talking about his intention to become a symbol for Gotham City, he spends a lot time talking about where he hopes he is no longer needed to be Batman anymore, at the expense of him actually going out as Batman and kicking ass. I guess people assumed that Rachel's death meant that Bruce would commit to being Batman for good, but when TDKR began with Bruce retiring for eight years after taking the blame for everything Harvey had done, some people thought it was a jump-the-shark moment. For what it's worth though, it never bothered me that he eventually retired because I thought the second film's ending never made any sense to begin with.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 22:53
I think Ledger's Joker essentially is the original Joker from Batman #1, except with some of the more complex psychological components of the Modern Age Joker.

Is Ledger's Joker really identical to the original one from 1940? Because while he may share a few things in common like broadcasting an announcement of crimes he'll commit and choice of weapons, I'd say the comic one's MO is completely different: a jewel-thieving serial killer who poisoned people to death with smiling gas. This is a lot more simple and straightforward than Ledger's I think. I also found the original comic's disguise to be a lot smarter than the films' (and that even includes Burton's Rotelli murder scene although I still love it for its black comedy), given that it shows Joker being able to hide his grin until he shows the card to his victim.

RE: Killing Joke - I always thought the book is left open to interpretation in that the flashbacks did happen because of how Joker looks remorseful as he turns down Batman's offer for rehabilitation in the end. No matter how sly, I can never imagine Ledger's Joker doing that.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 22:53
Batman characters have been reinterpreted in a wide and diverse number of ways. We often invoke this truism to defend Tim Burton's portrayal of Batman and the Penguin, and I think we should extend the same open-mindedness to Nolan's characters. Otherwise we risk descending into fanboyism, where we make allowances for our favourite interpretations that we then deny to others.

For what it's worth, while I do like Danny DeVito's performance as the Penguin,  I understand why some people didn't like his interpretation. It's a lot more grotesque, crude, and nothing like the gentlemanly mob boss too. And while I don't doubt there are traces of his take that stems from the comics, like Ledger's Joker I found DeVito's take to be different overall. Personally, my feeling for Ledger's Joker is the equivalent for those who didn't like DeVito's Penguin. Nothing against the actor or even his performance, I just didn't rate the way his character was depicted at all. In that case, I blame Nolan and Goyer for that.

One of the best things I love about this forum is that it does celebrate everything that's Batman related, which I don't find too often elsewhere. It also is a great place where people talk about what we like or didn't about certain interpretations, unlike people who post videos on YouTube ranting like idiots. But the best thing is this place seems to have people justify why, without getting on each others' nerves. That being said, any complaint I make Nolan's movies are based on what I judged on merit, nothing else. While Nolan's films have some comic influences here and there (like all comic-based films), I just don't think the hype around them are justified.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 15 Aug  2014, 22:53

I respectfully disagree with this. I don't think the Joker would ever choose to be normal. Not once his mind has snapped. Quite the opposite in fact, he'd try and change everyone else to drag them down to his level. Hence why he leaves his victims with a grotesque likeness of his own monstrous grin.

But that's the point of dragging people down to his level. If people were at his level, he would then be normal. Making people look like clowns, would make people look like him. But he can't be normal, he's stuck being a clown, which is why he snapped. So since he's stuck being a clown, he chooses to make everyone else a clown, and share in his insanity.

Joker wants to be normal, but can't. He's a clown forever. Therefore, he has chosen to make everyone like him, or chooses to show people(like Batman), that they're all like him, because he wants that normality in his life. But what he's doing isn't normal, it's psychotic.

QuoteBatman also wanted to quit and settle down with Selina at the end of Batman Returns. And he took his mask off in plain sight of one of his enemies. So I guess Burton messed up too.

First of all, Bruce/Batman never said he wanted to quit and settle down with Selina, he just said she shouldn't kill Max, and that she should stop what she's doing and go home with him. You're filling in a LOT of gaps on that one. Second, I wasn't talking about Burton in this particular situation. I never once brought him up, you did. I was talking about the Batman and Joker relationship, and said it really doesn't matter, cause Batman's portrayal was off, too. You're bringing in a straw man out of nowhere, in order to defend your stance. I'm not sure why, when I was never even talking about Burton? I'm quite aware that his movies aren't perfect, and also deviated from the source at times. So why are you bringing him up to me?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 16 Aug  2014, 08:04Burton's Batman is tempted by that chance towards the end of Batman Returns, sure. But Catwoman deprived him the opportunity. Whereas, by the end of Rises, Bruce fakes his death as both Bruce Wayne and Batman and puts his close few friends under such unnecessary grief to escape with another woman he barely knows.

It's certainly different from the comics, but it makes sense from a narrative perspective. TDKR was always going to be Nolan's final Batman film, and he wanted to finish the story that he began in 2005. He could either kill off Batman, have him find peace at last, or have an open-ended finale where he continues fighting crime indefinitely. Obviously the comics would have gone with the open-ended finale, but that's because comic writers don't have the luxury of closure. Nolan did have that option and he took it. I agree with you that it's not what the mainstream comic Batman would have done, but I accept it as what Nolan's Batman did.

My own preference would have been for an ending similar to that from Master of the Future, the sequel to Gotham by Gaslight. There we see the Victorian Bruce at peace with himself and happily settling down with Julie Madison, but also continuing to be Batman. That's the perfect conclusion for me, keeping it open-ended but also finishing on an upbeat note of closure.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 16 Aug  2014, 08:04To each their own I suppose, but I'd argue that the only classic Joker moment in the film was right at the end of the penthouse scene - when he remarked "Very poor choice of words!" as he pushes Rachel off the balcony right after Batman ordered him to let her go. That to me was the only time Ledger was playing a character that resembled anything like the Joker...and ironically, it's a moment where I rarely see anyone else, even the film's biggest fans, ever mention. But apart from that, I honestly felt that all those other scenes involving the Joker, like the hospital one, felt flat and didn't see the humour in there at all.

Yeah, I like the "poor choice of words" line, but it's funny how often it gets overlooked.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 16 Aug  2014, 08:04Although Joker had many dark moments in those stories, he still used clownish gimmicks to kill people i.e. laughing/smiling gas (althoug moreso in TDKR than TKJ). It doesn't make the gruesome situation any more funny at all, but at least those stories keep his cartoonish trademark antics. Whereas Nolan's film replaces all of that with those annoying Glasgow smiles done off-screen, which makes it less suspenseful in my opinion.

Admittedly Ledger's Joker kills most of his victims with guns and knives, but there are still several very Jokerish moments adapted straight from the comics.

The 'pencil trick' was inspired by a scene from Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth.


Tricking the GCPD into shooting their own men by disguising them as clowns, inspired by a scene from No Man's Land.


Battering Batman with the pipe, like he did to Jason in A Death in the Family.


Laughing defiantly as he falls to his death, as seen here in 'A Gold Star for the Joker' (Joker #4, December 1975).


Leaving playing cards on his victims' corpses (something the Nicholson Joker never did).


Leaving his victims seated at a table for Gordon and Batman to find, just like he did in 'Death Has the Last Laugh' (The Brave and the Bold #111, March 1974).


And there are plenty of other Jokerish moments, like when he kidnaps Mike Engel, hangs him upside down and makes him read off cue cards in mockery of the Gotham Tonight reports. Or where he places the grenade in the bank manager's mouth, only for it to be revealed as a smoke grenade; essentially a variation on the classic "BANG" gun gag. The way he slides down the pile of money and throws bank notes at Lau when he's tied to the chair. The way he disguises himself as a female nurse, and in particular his mock-sympathetic delivery of "Hiiiii" when he arrives in Dent's room. The way he makes fun of his goon after he gets stunned by the electric defence mechanism on Batman's cowl. His reaction when Stephens tells him he's killed six of his friends. The way he coyly answers "yes" when asked if he's going to just walk out of the gangsters' meeting covered in grenades. For me, these were all moments that evoked the comic Joker's sense of humour.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 16 Aug  2014, 08:04Batman Returns definitely had a lot of crazy absurd stuff, like the Penguin having a blueprint to the Batmobile, how nobody else in the apartment complex notices Selina Kyle having a mental breakdown nor were there any witnesses to her near death experience, and penguins marching down an empty street without anyone near in sight. Those are off the top of my head, and for what it's worth I can tell that Burton's first had its share of plot holes too. But I do believe the semi-comedic tone helped viewers to tolerate the plot holes; it's a comic fantasy where we can suspend our disbelief that this is a stage where fantastic and crazy things can happen in this world. Does that mean the plot holes should be excused? No, of course not. But at least the film's tone helps us to suspend our belief easier.

I see what you mean. But all too often I've seen fans cite the fantastical/expressionistic nature of Burton's films as an excuse to gloss over all the plot holes, inconsistencies with the source material, and lapses in internal logic. Many of these same people hold Nolan's films up to an impossible level of scrutiny, just so they can tear them down. And I suspect the reason for this is that they're tired of the masses – particularly people on sites like the IMDb and Batman-on-Film – telling them Burton's films suck and that Nolan's films are definitive. This breeds hostility towards Nolan's films amongst Burton's fans, which is a real shame, since they might otherwise have enjoyed Nolan's trilogy. I'm predicting a similar level of hostility will arise amongst Nolan's fans towards Zack Snyder's Batman (which, admittedly, might be quite funny to observe).

I just wish everyone could enjoy the films equally. It's like loving one era of the comics and hating any era that's different.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 16 Aug  2014, 08:04Fair point, but I think the reason why people complained about Batman wanting to retire throughout Nolan's series was because his love for Rachel was a factor in him hanging up the cape for good. So I guess for some people, it felt like his heart was really in it in the first place because if Bruce isn't talking about his intention to become a symbol for Gotham City, he spends a lot time talking about where he hopes he is no longer needed to be Batman anymore, at the expense of him actually going out as Batman and kicking ass. I guess people assumed that Rachel's death meant that Bruce would commit to being Batman for good, but when TDKR began with Bruce retiring for eight years after taking the blame for everything Harvey had done, some people thought it was a jump-the-shark moment. For what it's worth though, it never bothered me that he eventually retired because I thought the second film's ending never made any sense to begin with.

I can't really argue with this.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 16 Aug  2014, 08:04Is Ledger's Joker really identical to the original one from 1940?

Is he identical to the original Joker? No. But then Keaton's Batman isn't one hundred percent accurate to the original Kane/Finger Batman, despite the fact many people relate his interpretation to that era. There are always going to be some things that are added or subtracted to make the source material fit the filmmaker's vision. That can be a bad thing, such as in the case of Joel Schumacher's Bane. But I think Ledger's Joker was perfectly suited to Nolan's universe. For me at least, the essence of the character was definitely there.

They could have added familiar elements from the'89 film, like acid-squirting flowers and lethal electric buzzers, and Ledger could have played the role more flamboyantly, dancing and singing as he delights in mayhem. But I've seen that version of the Joker in a movie before, and I've seen it done well. If Nolan had chosen to go that route, I suspect we would have ended up with an inferior imitation of Nicholson's Joker. No one can do Jack Nicholson better than Jack Nicholson, and Ledger understood this. So he consciously tried to do something different. It was a near impossible task, and most people doubted he could pull it off. But in my mind, he succeeded with flying colours. And he delivered one of the most unique and memorable versions of the Joker in any medium to date.

I'm not saying he's the unbeatable, definitive be-all-to-end-all interpretation that some fans claim. But I do think Heath did a good job.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 16 Aug  2014, 08:04RE: Killing Joke - I always thought the book is left open to interpretation in that the flashbacks did happen because of how Joker looks remorseful as he turns down Batman's offer for rehabilitation in the end.

The canonicity of The Killing Joke is a very interesting subject. There are several pre-Ledger comics that verify the flashbacks as having happened. But ever since The Dark Knight came out, most people have latched onto the "multiple choice" line as proof that they didn't. This is another subject that really should have its own thread over on the comics board.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 16 Aug  2014, 08:04For what it's worth, while I do like Danny DeVito's performance as the Penguin,  I understand why some people didn't like his interpretation. It's a lot more grotesque, crude, and nothing like the gentlemanly mob boss too. And while I don't doubt there are traces of his take that stems from the comics, like Ledger's Joker I found DeVito's take to be different overall. Personally, my feeling for Ledger's Joker is the equivalent for those who didn't like DeVito's Penguin. Nothing against the actor or even his performance, I just didn't rate the way his character was depicted at all. In that case, I blame Nolan and Goyer for that.

I think the basic essence of the Penguin is still there – that he's a weird-looking outcast who wants to fit into high society. But there was no charm or eloquence to the character, and very little in the way of posturing or highfalutin dialogue. He never quotes Keats or Shakespeare, and he certainly isn't a gentleman. Instead he's a violent pervert who seems to take pride in being an obnoxious thug ("I am an animal! Cold blooded!"); an attitude that's antithetical to the more aspirational Penguin from the comics. Burton and Waters also never explained why he carries umbrellas or wears a top hat. We can't say he does it out of a sense of fashion, because the DeVito Penguin has no fashion sense. He seems to spend most of the film wearing an unwashed onesie (which has no basis in the comics whatsoever and completely goes against the character's narcissistic and pretentious fashion sense).

Pfeiffer's Catwoman is a strange take on the character, but all the pieces are there in one way or another. You can justify a good 80-90% of her characterisation by looking at the comics. With DeVito's Penguin, you can maybe justify about 50-60% of it. The rest is an original creation by Daniel Waters and Tim Burton. So in that regard, I'd say Ledger's Joker and Pfeiffer's Catwoman are about equal in terms of comic accuracy. I think they're both closer to the comics than DeVito's Penguin. But that's just my take on it.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 16 Aug  2014, 08:04One of the best things I love about this forum is that it does celebrate everything that's Batman related, which I don't find too often elsewhere. It also is a great place where people talk about what we like or didn't about certain interpretations, unlike people who post videos on YouTube ranting like idiots. But the best thing is this place seems to have people justify why, without getting on each others' nerves. That being said, any complaint I make Nolan's movies are based on what I judged on merit, nothing else. While Nolan's films have some comic influences here and there (like all comic-based films), I just don't think the hype around them are justified.

Fair enough. You've always backed up your opinions with logic instead of insults, Laughing Fish, and I respect that. My own views reflect my subjective readings of the films/comics/TV shows, and I've no reason to think those views are more valid than anyone else's. I'm always open to hearing different opinions. And this is one of the few sites where someone can voice an opinion without being subjected to ad hominem abuse.

Though of course I've never, ever, ever been wrong about anything related to the Batman franchise.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 19 Aug  2013, 19:01Ben Affleck has said he'll never play a superhero ever again. So there's no way it's going to be him.

http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=2421.100

:-[....Ugh, the fact I wrote that about two days before he was cast makes it all the more embarrassing. 

Quote from: Travesty on Sat, 16 Aug  2014, 14:31But that's the point of dragging people down to his level. If people were at his level, he would then be normal. Making people look like clowns, would make people look like him. But he can't be normal, he's stuck being a clown, which is why he snapped. So since he's stuck being a clown, he chooses to make everyone else a clown, and share in his insanity.

Joker wants to be normal, but can't. He's a clown forever. Therefore, he has chosen to make everyone like him, or chooses to show people(like Batman), that they're all like him, because he wants that normality in his life. But what he's doing isn't normal, it's psychotic.

Again, I respectfully disagree. The Joker isn't trying to turn everyone in the world into copies of himself. He's murdering them and mutilating their corpses to leave his mark on them. I don't think it's quite the same thing.

Granted, in stories like The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight we see him pursuing a nihilistic agenda intended to expose the fact that – in his eye's at least – human beings are inherently wicked and selfish, like he is. In terms of moral compromise and mental fragility, the Joker thinks everyone else already is like him deep down. Especially Batman. But ultimately the Joker sees himself as a unique product of chaos and random misfortune. He's actively expressed disdain for other criminals who copy him, such as when he encountered Jarvis Poker, the British Joker (whom he subsequently murdered), in Paul Cornell's Knight and Squire miniseries.


'Normality' implies that the Joker would want to fit in with the crowd. But the Joker, by definition, is a wild card. He represents the random factor that exists outside of conventional order. I can see the Penguin yearning to be normal, or maybe Two-Face. But never the Joker.

Quote from: Travesty on Sat, 16 Aug  2014, 14:31First of all, Bruce/Batman never said he wanted to quit and settle down with Selina, he just said she shouldn't kill Max, and that she should stop what she's doing and go home with him. You're filling in a LOT of gaps on that one. Second, I wasn't talking about Burton in this particular situation. I never once brought him up, you did. I was talking about the Batman and Joker relationship, and said it really doesn't matter, cause Batman's portrayal was off, too. You're bringing in a straw man out of nowhere, in order to defend your stance. I'm not sure why, when I was never even talking about Burton? I'm quite aware that his movies aren't perfect, and also deviated from the source at times. So why are you bringing him up to me?

I never said you brought Burton up. But even if I had, I don't see why that would be reason to take offence. I brought up Burton's interpretation of Batman as a comparison to Nolan's, the same way as other people in the thread have brought up Nicholson's interpretation of the Joker as a comparison to Ledger's. That's called an analogy, not a straw man. A straw man is when you misrepresent someone else's argument to twist it into something you can more easily refute. I never did that. In an earlier post you voiced the opinion that Nolan made a mistake regarding Batman's desire to have a normal life. I merely voiced the opinion that Burton made the same mistake in Batman Returns. But if there was a lack of clarity in my post, or if my opinion in any way offended you, then I apologise.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I think it is heavily implied that Bruce wants a normal life with Selina. He actually takes his mask off right in front of Shreck, having just said he intends to hand Shreck over to the police. In doing so, he's permanently relinquishing his secret identity. He's showing Selina that he's committed to the idea of a normal life, focusing on just one side of his personality, without the safeguard of a secret identity. He's showing her that he can let go of Batman in the hopes that she'll let go of Catwoman; so they can both free themselves from their demons and live a happy, normal existence. How could he possibly continue fighting crime in Gotham when every criminal in the city knows his secret identity and home address? The only way forward would be for he and Selina to leave Gotham like they did at the end of The Dark Knight Rises. Either that or kill Shreck, but there's nothing in the film to indicate that that was Batman's plan.

There are only three reasons why Batman might reveal his true identity to one of his enemies:

1) He's planning to kill that particular enemy (e.g. the Joker at the end of Batman 89, or Joe Chill in Batman: Year Two)

2) He trusts that particular enemy to keep his identity secret (e.g. Catwoman in Hush). I don't think this applies to Shreck

3) He intends to abandon the dual identity all together

The third reason is the only one which makes sense in relation to Batman Returns.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 16 Aug  2014, 18:01
It's certainly different from the comics, but it makes sense from a narrative perspective. TDKR was always going to be Nolan's final Batman film, and he wanted to finish the story that he began in 2005. He could either kill off Batman, have him find peace at last, or have an open-ended finale where he continues fighting crime indefinitely. Obviously the comics would have gone with the open-ended finale, but that's because comic writers don't have the luxury of closure. Nolan did have that option and he took it. I agree with you that it's not what the mainstream comic Batman would have done, but I accept it as what Nolan's Batman did.

I still thought the way Nolan wrote Batman leaving Gotham for good was rather cruel to Blake, Alfred, Fox and Gordon...but then again it fits into this Batman's character since he didn't too looked concerned after burning the temple with everyone inside or causing damage with his Tumbler and Batpod.  ;)

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 16 Aug  2014, 18:01
I see what you mean. But all too often I've seen fans cite the fantastical/expressionistic nature of Burton's films as an excuse to gloss over all the plot holes, inconsistencies with the source material, and lapses in internal logic. Many of these same people hold Nolan's films up to an impossible level of scrutiny, just so they can tear them down. And I suspect the reason for this is that they're tired of the masses – particularly people on sites like the IMDb and Batman-on-Film – telling them Burton's films suck and that Nolan's films are definitive. This breeds hostility towards Nolan's films amongst Burton's fans, which is a real shame, since they might otherwise have enjoyed Nolan's trilogy. I'm predicting a similar level of hostility will arise amongst Nolan's fans towards Zack Snyder's Batman (which, admittedly, might be quite funny to observe).

I just wish everyone could enjoy the films equally. It's like loving one era of the comics and hating any era that's different.

The people who post on Imdb and BOF who constantly complain that Burton's Batman killed are usually those who are in constant denial that 'their' Batman killed villains too (thankfully you're not one of them). People like that should be pitied and ignored.

There may be some fans who react against the pro-Nolan supporters by hating on the Burton films. But with all due respect, I think it's a little bit naive to assume the majority of Nolan's critics are reacting against his popularity. After all, some people here used to be big fans of TDK, but now they have become more critical of the film compared to when they first saw it. And besides, most pro-Burton fans I've seen are actually looking forward to see what Snyder and Affleck can bring to the table, so it's definitely not a question of devotion to Burton.

I don't agree that people hold these movies up to an impossible level of scrutiny at all because for all the seriousness, for all supposed drama, for all the attempts to be more realistic and the attempts to have "thought-provoking" themes, these films all suffer from too many flaws that people would normally rip apart other movies for having. If Burton's Batman, Man of Steel, any Spider-Man movie or any Marvel Studios movie have the same problems like this trilogy has, they would've been condemned and their directors would be held accountable. After all, the same people who never had a problem with Nolan's Batman doing ineffective things like causing collateral damage and being responsible for the deaths of Ra's, Talia and Two-Face, are usually the ones who whined about Superman's recklessness and killing Zod in Man of Steel. Hypocrisy much?

Questionable storytelling choices can hurt any film, but these films had far too many of them. Joker says to Batman "You won't kill me because of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness", but then Batman kills Two-Face five minutes later. It's things like that make it very hard for me, and I'm sure for many people, to have such respect for the films, and especially for Nolan as a storyteller. For whatever liberties and direction Nolan was taking, I could have forgiven all of it if this kind of stupidity didn't appear in his movies so often, and characters didn't continue to do things that didn't match what they supposed to believe in. Put that together with his inconsistent approach to realism, unnecessary expository dialogue from beginning to end, and a general lack of fun (especially in the action department that don't involve car chases and airplanes), it's not very hard to understand why some people don't enjoy these films, and actually found them less entertaining than the ones mentioned above.

And this is the question that people like me have to deal with these films: if Nolan's trying to make a more intelligent action film, then how do you account these problems, or most importantly, what makes these films better executed than any of the aforementioned ones? If the flaws are acknowledged, then why do people think they're so fantastic?

I can accept people have different tastes in films and that's certainly fine, but as far as Nolan is concerned, I find him to be an incredibly shoddy storyteller for someone who has become so highly regarded.  I'll start showing him some respect when he stops trying to find break his own rules and stays more consistent to the narrative that he is creating. Until then, I will continue to think he is an overrated director who should be forbidden from writing scripts.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 16 Aug  2014, 18:01
Is he identical to the original Joker? No. But then Keaton's Batman isn't one hundred percent accurate to the original Kane/Finger Batman, despite the fact many people relate his interpretation to that era.

Fair enough.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 16 Aug  2014, 18:01
Fair enough. You've always backed up your opinions with logic instead of insults, Laughing Fish, and I respect that. My own views reflect my subjective readings of the films/comics/TV shows, and I've no reason to think those views are more valid than anyone else's. I'm always open to hearing different opinions.

The feeling is mutual, mate.  8)

QuoteOh boy, this thread's gotten very one sided :-[. I thought Ledger was excellent as the Joker. It's not a matter of one performance being better than the other, and it doesn't really bother me if the majority of people disagree with my own opinion. I like Nicholson and Ledger in the role. So I'll try and defend Ledger's performance, just as I would if everyone started slagging off Nicholson's.

Well, it did obviously bother you a bit that people disagree with you, otherwise, you would not have taken the time to compose such a comprehensive presentation of your opinion. But that's natural - human instinct - to be bothered by opposition, so don't deny it with an off-the-cuff remark - embrace and acknowledge it as what fueled your self-expression.  :) and people have been slagging Nicholson's Joker for years, btw.

QuoteBut even if you look at earlier stories like Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth (1989), can you honestly say McKean's Joker doesn't look more like Ledger's Joker than Nicholson's?

McKean's Joker doesn't resemble either of them, & not Ledger's in the slightest. But my, oh my, what brilliant work. My favorite visual interpretation of Joker.

(Ledger's Joker was heavily influenced by Lee Bermejo's interpretation, a close rival with McKean's Joker for my favorite)

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30* "Madness is like gravity..." A cute line, except the character depicted in The Dark Knight wasn't "mad", or crazy, or anything else that would make for a good quote (or resemble The Joker character.) He was precise, calculating, and filled with nerd-rage... and not at all crazy. Jittery as hell and really, really pissed? Yes. Murderous? You bet. "Mad (as in 'a Mad Tea Party')"? No. Every one of his schemes (and long-winded speeches, for that matter) were, as many of you have pointed out, meticulously planned & executed - the work of a focused, scheming terrorist, not of a chaotic, fun-loving psycho, which you could call 'reinvention'...

Quote
You could say the exact same thing about the Nicholson Joker. He was incredibly meticulous in his plans, especially if you read Hamm's original script. He plotted the murders of the mob bosses who opposed him, consolidated all their resources into a single organisation (Nicholson's Joker is actually a businessman amongst other things), unearthed a secret nerve toxin from the CIA, broke it down into a compound poison, contaminated thousands of hygiene and cosmetic products, poisoned almost the entire GCPD, and timed the poison so it would kick in just as he was crashing the unveiling of the bicentennial statue (see Hamm's script for this subplot), repeatedly hijacked the city's TV signals for his own illegal broadcasts, mass produced counterfeit banknotes with which to lure the public to his parade, and staged a massive street party that even the city council couldn't match.

Good point, & one with which I agree. But my point - though I probably didn't make myself clear - is that the essence of Ledger's Joker was that of the "schemers" he so greatly detests/against whom he rants in the hospital room. Where Jack's Joker was precise & scheming, he was also completely spontaneous & playfully random, yet vicious & murderous - you didn't know if he'd kill you or kiss you. Again, having not articulated it well, I guess my point was that TDK Joker all but lacked that colorful dynamic. His violence, scheming and his "chaos" message were the base of the character, & all that there really was to him, and to me, that doesn't constitute a portrayal of madness, no matter how jittery he got.

QuoteInsanity doesn't necessarily mean diminished intellect. It would take a genius to pull off what Nicholson and Ledger's Jokers did,

but it would take a madman to actually want to do those things.

subjective. as i see it, it wouldn't necessarily take a madman, just a nasty, driven, resourceful, completely uninhibited person. a businessman, a mobster... a genius? well, let's just say it would take some very smart men - which brings us back to businessmen & mobsters - and ignore the plotholes we've been mentioning, and that much of their terrorism wouldn't even be possible to see through to fruition.

*incidentally, the theory that anarchy & chaos is fair is not particularly outlandish or farfetched. It's basically true, and so even his motivations - though it all sounds good for a crazy person to say - are not mad.

and don't misunderstand me, sir - or misquote me, i never said a thing about diminished intellect, nor did i imply that insanity leads to it. Mental clarity, however, is nearly always compromised in the insane, & Ledger's Joker is totally clear-headed & with a logical motive.

(I'd also like to point out that 3/4 of what you listed there didn't make the final cut of the film, & that naturally, i've never read an early draft of Hamm's script - the plotting of the murders, the unearthing/breaking down of a CIA nerve toxin, timed poisoning of the GCPD & mass production of counterfeit bank notes are all completely ignored in the final cut, and so the impression we're given is either that things just seem to be happening - yup! Burton's films had inconsistencies - or that he [Joker] is making it up as he goes along.)

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30* TDK Joker's monologues praising "chaos", "anarchy" and "disorder" are ripped pretty much verbatim from The Testament of Dr. Mabuse, a 1933 German film. Again - director & screenwriters at fault here, not Heath; I just thought it was lame of them to do that.

QuoteI don't see that as a flaw. Nolan's cited his fondness for Fritz Lang many times. And as a fan of classic cinema, I like it when filmmakers reference their influences. There are plenty of ideas/images/lines of dialogue in Burton's films that are lifted from earlier movies. Connecting those dots adds an extra layer of fun for film buffs looking for intertextual readings.

I think it's wonderful that Nolan was influenced by Fritz Lang, I probably enjoy his films as much as Nolan does. As I clearly stated, however, my issue was not with that. I think you may've done what many people seem to do nowadays, & misinterpreted my criticism of grabbing something so blatant & specific from someone else's work as a complaint against him embracing his influences. Not the case at all, I just didn't appreciate how portions of dialogue that specific, extensive, and which formed the backbone of the film turned out to be recycled almost verbatim from another one.

And yes, before you bring it up, Burton constantly uses second hand ideas from old horror films & german expressionst films - part of why i'm not crazy about his work (how derivative it generally is.) In Batman '89, however, it wasn't particularly blatant or derivative apart from the silly Vertigo stairwell visual, it had more to do with the general tone & design of the film - and it was re-imagined so thoroughly that it had it's own character. With Mabuse it was a case of clipping large amounts of dialogue almost word for word.

And for the record, I appreciate that you took what must've been an eternity to bring together these multiple opposing essays & to dig up all (& paste together some) of these Joker photos (though that may've sounded like sarcasm, it wasn't.) Although... due to a lot of what you've said, the impression I get is that you misinterpreted quite a bit here as people nitpicking & trying to bring Nolan & his films down. Which generally, they weren't. You say that the thread has become one sided - to some degree, you're right, but you have to expect that sort of thing on a discussion forum. How could you not? Much of what has been written here has been legitimate criticism, & when it wasn't, it was simply people expressing their opinions in a pretty diplomatic way, which happen to go against the opinions of the majority (and apparently, you.)

For the first time in years, a group of people are discussing Ledger & the Nolan films in realistic terms instead of mythic ones, & to be honest, I think that might have caught you a bit off guard. Which is natural, because you are among the ones who find the films to be great. But most of the people who posted recently in defense of Jack aren't Burton or Nicholson fanatics - nor do they bear any great resentment for Ledger, Nolan or Bale. a lot of them are people who loved TDK when it came out, & after having removed the hype goggles, realized maybe it wasn't quite what it had been cracked up to be all these years. As you can tell from my post, the unremitting worship of Heath's performance is something i find a little exhausting, so i took advantage of the fact that I'd found somewhere on the web where it was actually safe to say I didn't find his performance to be oscar-worthy, that to me the Dark Knight Trilogy felt like color-washed action/cop dramas that spoke at length of a number of ponderous, philosophical themes without actually exploring them. I probably didn't word my Joker post as gracefully as i should have; some of what i wrote was a little boorish & abrasive, but i did essentially what you did with your post - expressed a well thought out (if somewhat critical) viewpoint which opposed the viewpoints of others.

As i already sort of mentioned, I think you may have the wrong idea in regards to Jack's supporters & Heath's detractors here on the forum - that we're ardent Burton fans. As far as I can tell, none of us really is. I think we're kinda realistic about his movies, all perfectly aware of minor plotholes, inconsistencies and whatever other imperfections lie throughout the first two films. I personally prefer Batman '89 over other Batman films because I find the performances by the two leads to be superior, anchored more by subtlety & nuance (particularly Keaton's offbeat characterization) than Bale's & Ledger's performances. I enjoy the creative visual aspect, & i prefer the sharper, tighter, more consistent, less wordy & plodding script. But I don't consider it perfect at all, as a stand alone film or as a Batman film. I'm not a fan of Burton in general, and i really don't much care for Batman Returns.

Quote from: riddler on Sun, 10 Aug  2014, 19:04Especially with batman 89, you really need to nitpick to find flaws there, they aren't apparent.

QuoteWe should discuss the flaws in Batman Returns sometime. I've spotted a lot of them the last few times I've watched it. But I'll save that for another thread. Bottom line, every film has flaws. If you want to find them, you will. The question is, are the flaws really so apparent that they outweigh the merits and spoil your enjoyment of the film. In the case of The Dark Knight, my answer to that question would be no.

But alas, he wasn't referring to Batman Returns. As you yourself are keen to point out, we should be cognizant of that to which we're reacting - though Batman '89 is not without it's flaws, as he stated, they (apart from the subjective stuff) aren't particularly obvious (narrative things, etc.); it's a very different film from Batman Returns, which, in my opinion, was rife with them.

QuoteI see what you mean. But all too often I've seen fans cite the fantastical/expressionistic nature of Burton's films as an excuse to gloss over all the plot holes, inconsistencies with the source material, and lapses in internal logic. Many of these same people hold Nolan's films up to an impossible level of scrutiny, just so they can tear them down.

Ah, I see what you mean. But all too often I've seen fans cite the realistic setting/relentlessly bleak & serious tone/grandiose nature of Nolan's films as an excuse to gloss over all the plot holes, inconsistencies with the source material, and lapses in internal logic. Many of these same people hold Burton's films, the Adam West TV show or anything that wasn't directed by Christopher Nolan up to an impossible level of scrutiny, just so they can tear them down.

so, you see? it goes both ways, doesn't it?

Yes, it does.

at any rate, my intention is not to cause some kind of flare-up, i just wanted to clear the air on where i stand & use the forum for what it was intended - to express my personal views on various batman related media, and to maybe get people to consider things in a different light. i see it says you're on the staff, so i'll say thanks for letting me diddle around on the forum. 

Good exercise for the brain, to sort all this stuff out & see it in writing.  :D

I'd also like to strongly encourage you to pay special attention to this bit, Silver Nemesis, because it's rather brilliantly articulated:

QuoteI don't agree that people hold these movies up to an impossible level of scrutiny at all because for all the seriousness, for all supposed drama, for all the attempts to be more realistic and the attempts to have "thought-provoking" themes, these films all suffer from too many flaws that people would normally rip apart other movies for having. If Burton's Batman, Man of Steel, any Spider-Man movie or any Marvel Studios movie have the same problems like this trilogy has, they would've been condemned and their directors would be held accountable. After all, the same people who never had a problem with Nolan's Batman doing ineffective things like causing collateral damage and being responsible for the deaths of Ra's, Talia and Two-Face, are usually the ones who whined about Superman's recklessness and killing Zod in Man of Steel. Hypocrisy much?

Questionable storytelling choices can hurt any film, but these films had far too many of them. Joker says to Batman "You won't kill me because of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness", but then Batman kills Two-Face five minutes later. It's things like that make it very hard for me, and I'm sure for many people, to have such respect for the films, and especially for Nolan as a storyteller. For whatever liberties and direction Nolan was taking, I could have forgiven all of it if this kind of stupidity didn't appear in his movies so often, and characters didn't continue to do things that didn't match what they supposed to believe in. Put that together with his inconsistent approach to realism, unnecessary expository dialogue from beginning to end, and a general lack of fun (especially in the action department that don't involve car chases and airplanes), it's not very hard to understand why some people don't enjoy these films, and actually found them less entertaining than the ones mentioned above.

:)

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 17 Aug  2014, 08:31I still thought the way Nolan wrote Batman leaving Gotham for good was rather cruel to Blake, Alfred, Fox and Gordon...

I don't think it was cruel. Alfred got exactly what he wanted: he got to live out his retirement in Tuscany, assured in the knowledge that Bruce was finally out of danger and living a happy normal life with someone he loved. Fox assumed control over Wayne Enterprises. Gordon also looked pretty happy at the end. Order had been restored to his city and he no longer had to cover for Dent's crimes. Blake got to see all the orphaned kids in Gotham receive a new home and a better way of life. And Bruce entrusted him with his greatest secret, leaving him the option of becoming the new Batman if he so chose. Bruce took care of everyone.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 17 Aug  2014, 08:31There may be some fans who react against the pro-Nolan supporters by hating on the Burton films. But with all due respect, I think it's a little bit naive to assume the majority of Nolan's critics are reacting against his popularity.

I'm sure not every single person who disliked the films felt that way because they were Burton fans. But the most vitriolic Nolan haters that I've encountered have been. Fact is the vast majority of people do like Nolan's Batman films. The haters are very much a minority. The Dark Knight, for example, has an IMDb rating of 9/10 with over 1,222,000 votes. And if you look at the breakdown of votes you'll see that 96% of people voted it a 6 or higher. Only 4% rated it lower than 6. And in my experience, most of that 4% tend to be Burton fans who resent the backlash against the old films that followed the success of Nolan's. I'm sure there are impartial people who think Nolan's films are overrated, but the ones who passionately hate his work – who just can't let it go – tend to be 'Burtonites'. At least that's how it's been with the people I've talked to.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 17 Aug  2014, 08:31After all, some people here used to be big fans of TDK, but now they have become more critical of the film compared to when they first saw it.

That could be because they've awoken to the film's flaws. Or it could just as easily be because their first viewing was unprejudiced by fanboyism. A lot of the post-Nolan backlash against Burton's films came from people who said they'd enjoyed Batman 89 and Batman Returns as kids, but presently found them unwatchable because now they were older they could see the flaws in them. Are they seeing genuine flaws, or is their perspective now skewered because they've latched onto a more recent interpretation? And could the same be true of Burton fans who once enjoyed Nolan's films but have subsequently turned against them?

If someone says they loved a film when it first came out, but love it less now they've had time to think about it, then I can understand that. But if someone says they loved a film when they first saw it, but now hate it passionately and think it's unredeemable 0/10 drivel, then I find that a little hard to believe. Films don't change over time, only people's attitudes towards them. And for someone's attitude to change so radically in just a year or two suggests an external influence has likely affected their opinion.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 17 Aug  2014, 08:31And besides, most pro-Burton fans I've seen are actually looking forward to see what Snyder and Affleck can bring to the table, so it's definitely not a question of devotion to Burton.

Nolan worshippers didn't waste time trashing the sixties Batman or Schumacher's films, because those weren't perceived as a threat. They did target Burton's film because those were regarded as the classic 'dark' and 'serious' Batman films to beat. Likewise Burton fans aren't currently threatened by Snyder's film. I think for several reasons.

1) Snyder's track record is considerably less impressive than Nolan's, and most of his films have received mixed to negative reviews. So it's unlikely BvS will arouse the same level of hyperbole or fanaticism as Nolan's films did. If anything, Snyder fans could potentially become allies in the battle against Nolanites. Time will tell.

2) Early indicators suggest Snyder's film may have a stylised look, possibly more akin to Burton's films than Nolan's. This has already led to a renewed appreciation for Burton's stylised fantasy approach.

3) Burton's films are no longer regarded as the benchmark to be surpassed. Nolan's films are. So all the kids who jump on the BvS bandwagon will likely target Nolan's trilogy before Burton's movies.

But if BvS ends up getting amazing reviews, and everyone starts saying Snyder has created the definitive fantasy Batman to compliment Nolan's realistic version – that Snyder's expansive stylised Gotham surpasses Burton's claustrophobic soundstages, that Affleck's 6'3 powerhouse Batman makes Keaton's slender 5'9 Batman look ridiculous, that the film's overall balance between fantasy and realism is much closer to the comics than Burton's – then I wouldn't be remotely surprised if many of the same Burton fans who are currently trashing Nolan just as quickly turn on Snyder. I could be wrong, but we'll see.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 17 Aug  2014, 08:31If Burton's Batman, Man of Steel, any Spider-Man movie or any Marvel Studios movie have the same problems like this trilogy has, they would've been condemned and their directors would be held accountable.

Nolan's movies have been ripped apart. This thread is proof of that. But many of the flaws don't stand up to analysis, just like many of the alleged flaws in Burton's and Raimi's films don't. Of course there are some valid flaws in Nolan's films, but a lot of the stuff people are listing in this thread boils down to subjective disapproval of Nolan's creative choices rather than objectively verifiable technical errors in his filmmaking skills. In fact, looking over the comments here, many of them seem to be directed more at Nolan's fans than Nolan himself. Nolan's fans criticise Batman for killing in Burton's films but don't acknowledge him killing in the Dark Knight trilogy? Well that's the fans' mistake, not Nolan's. If we shift blame onto Nolan then we're adopting the exact same bias as his fans do – we're calling him out for doing something that Burton did, but somehow granting one filmmaker clemency and not the other.

The criticism of both Burton's Batman films and Raimi's Spider-Man films has definitely been excessive since their respective franchises were rebooted, and that's unfortunate. But that doesn't necessarily mean excessive criticism of Nolan and Webb is warranted to redress the balance. It just means the unfounded criticisms of the older films should be rebuked, since a lot of those so-called 'flaws' were weak to begin with.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 17 Aug  2014, 08:31After all, the same people who never had a problem with Nolan's Batman doing ineffective things like causing collateral damage and being responsible for the deaths of Ra's,

The killing of Ra's is a criticism I agree with. It's Nolan's equivalent of the dynamite scene from Batman Returns. It's an inexcusably out of character moment that goes against everything Batman stands for. Jean-Paul Valley proved himself unworthy of being Batman when he let Abattoir fall to his death in 'Mortal Remains' (Batman #508, June 1994).


Death through inaction is not an acceptable alternative in Batman's moral code. Admittedly there have been comics where he's tried to kill Ra's al Ghul, but the difference there is that in the comics he had foreknowledge of Ra's' regenerative capabilities. In the movie he didn't, because no such capabilities existed in Nolan's universe. A better depiction of Batman's attitude to saving an enemy can be found in the ending of Arkham City (2011). Watch the first two minutes of this video, and in particular Batman's line at the 57 second mark: "Do you want to know something funny? Even after everything you've done, I would have saved you."


That's the real Batman, right there.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 17 Aug  2014, 08:31Talia

He literally had no choice in that situation. Talia and her driver would have been dead in a couple of minutes anyway once the bomb went off, along with everyone else in Gotham. Batman's objective was not to kill, but to save life. If he hadn't taken that course of action, he would have condemned the entire population of Gotham to death through inaction.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 17 Aug  2014, 08:31are usually the ones who whined about Superman's recklessness and killing Zod in Man of Steel. Hypocrisy much?

I think the difference lies in the fact that Batman was originally conceived as a character that killed, whereas Superman wasn't. Batman's meant to be a dark, sinister character. Superman isn't. Batman is a human with limited resources who sometimes gets cornered in situations where he may have to kill. Superman's a godlike alien who can fly faster than the speed of light, travel through time and move planets. Unlike Batman, Superman has no excuse not to find an alternative. But most importantly of all, Batman can live with the guilt of killing, whereas the Superman in the comics has sworn an oath to relinquish his powers if he ever takes a life. Which is precisely what heppened in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? (1986).


What really ticked off a lot of people about the Zod scene was that it just wasn't necessary. It wasn't even in the original script. The film was originally supposed to end with Zod getting drawn into the Phantom Zone along with all the other Kryptonians. And since the film was already a little overlong to begin with, they probably should have stuck with that original ending. Then they could have had Zod return in a later film. Instead Snyder decided to add on another fifteen minutes of CGI carnage in which Superman and Zod re-enact 9/11 before Supes snaps his opponent's neck. Nolan and Goyer both objected to this, but ultimately caved in to Snyder's vision.

I've got very mixed feelings about the scene myself. For now, I'm just waiting to see how they follow up on it in the next film. It's something that needs to be addressed.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 17 Aug  2014, 08:31Joker says to Batman "You won't kill me because of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness", but then Batman kills Two-Face five minutes later.

But that was an accident. If Batman had intended to kill Two-Face, he would have snuck up on him and done it quickly and quietly. His objective in that scene was to rescue Gordon's son, not to kill Dent. He didn't consciously break his moral code, so there's no contradiction in his ethics.

Another interpretation I've encountered for that scene is that it represents the Joker's ideological triumph over Batman. The Joker tried to engineer a situation between the two ferries where one good person would cause the deaths of others. He failed at that, but he essentially succeeded in doing the same thing with Dent, Gordon and Batman. He created a scenario where either Dent – the city's paragon of virtue, its 'White Knight' – would kill an innocent, or else Batman, Gordon or some other GCPD officer would be forced to kill Dent. This ended the film on a morally gray note that's open to interpretation. Yes, Batman defeated the Joker by capturing him, but did the Joker defeat Batman on a more meaningful level?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 17 Aug  2014, 08:31Put that together with his inconsistent approach to realism,

The realism/fantasy issue is perhaps the biggest problem I have with the criticism of Nolan. It holds Nolan accountable to a manifesto to which he never actually committed himself. He may use certain techniques characteristic of cinéma vérité, but he's never claimed his films are kitchen sink dramas or 100% true to reality. Only that they were intended to have a more grounded sensibility than the older Batman films. He wanted Gotham to look like a real city and not like a soundstage. I think he accomplished that goal. He wanted to explore the functionality and origin of Batman's arsenal. And while he did probably overdo the expository dialogue, it was all in the pursuit of showing us an aspect of the mythos that the previous films had overlooked. He set out to make a Batman film that was more realistic than its predecessors, not to make a documentary about real crime in Chicago. It's the fans who've distorted his motives into something they can attack.

In this thread people have criticised Nolan for sucking the fun out of the Joker by making him more realistic than previous iterations, but they've also criticised him for making his vehicular chases too fantastic on the basis that this betrays his allegiance to realism and Batman's moral code. Against that sort of criticism, he can't possibly win. It creates a false dichotomy between verisimilitude and fantasy and says Nolan can't strike a middle ground equidistant between the two; and that any instance in the films where he veers too close to one at the expense of the other therefore reflects a contradiction or inconsistency in his writing. Now that's perfectly fine as the basis of a subjective aversion his work, but I don't think it's a fair basis for an objective denouncement of his craftsmanship.

Roger Ebert did something similar in his review of Batman 89. He claimed comic book fantasy and film noir were incompatible, and then proceeded to highlight aspects of film noir (for example, the characterisation of Bruce Wayne) as flaws in Burton's conceptualisation of the material. If he'd just accepted that film noir and comic book fantasy can cross-pollinate within a single work – and Batman 89's existence proves such a fusion can exist – then those things he saw as flaws would actually be merits that exemplify the film's innovative cross-genre stylings. But instead he insisted Burton couldn't have it both ways, and that any pretence at noir was to the film's detriment.

It's like if I was to criticise Batman Returns for being both campy and dark. The camp humour undermines the sense of darkness and threat, but the violence and dark atmosphere of the film negate the humour. If I evaluate the film in those terms, it's impossible for me to like it. Because at the end of the day, Batman Returns is both campy and dark. Burton had it both ways. That's its identity. It's a cross-genre film, the mercurial core of which fluctuates between darkness and humour. That balancing point allowed Burton to dip into either extreme to suit the tonal requirements of the narrative (you could criticise it for being tonally inconsistent if you're looking for flaws, or you can celebrate its tonal range as a strength if you're looking to praise it), and the end result is a unique film unlike any other entry in the series. The same is true of Nolan's Batman films. They're fantasy superhero films, but also urban crime dramas. If I can't accept that, and if I insist the film must be either completely realistic or completely fantastic, then I'm not giving the film, or Nolan, a fair chance.

I also think it's unfair to criticise Batman's moral hypocrisy in Nolan's films, while giving Burton a free pass for doing the exact same thing in Batman Returns. The fact Burton's film is more fantastical doesn't make the contradiction in its underlying moral framework any less problematic. Both directors had Batman verbally state that he wasn't above the law, yet both directors showed him deliberately taking human life. But in most cases, the loss of life was a collateral side effect of his real objective. Batman didn't blow up Axis chemicals to kill the Joker's men; he did it to cut off the supply of Smylex before the Joker's midnight parade. Likewise Bruce's objective in blowing up the League of Shadows' headquarters was not to kill as many people as possible, but to create a diversion to try and balance the uneven odds in his favour (and for all we know, the decoy Ra's may have been the only person to have died in that blast). Other deaths, like when Batman threw the goon down the cathedral stairwell in Batman 89, or when he killed Talia and her truck driver in TDKR, were desperate measures necessary to achieve a greater good.

For Batman to cognitively and purposefully break his moral code, he must intentionally end someone's life during a situation where an alternative exists. He did this once in Nolan's films: when he instructed Gordon to sabotage the monorail track and left Ra's to perish in the ensuing crash. He did it three times in Burton's films: when he tried to kill the Joker at the end of Batman 89, when he set the gang member on fire in Batman Returns, and the dynamite scene with the tattooed strongman. You could argue he did it a fourth time when he fired on the Joker's men during the parade, but I'm not 100% convinced he actually killed any of them. I think they may have just been warning shots to frighten them off so he could go mano-a-mano with the Joker.

When it comes to Batman's ethics, I get the impression you're more frustrated with the double standard displayed by Nolan's fans – criticising Burton's Batman for killing and refusing to acknowledge instances when Nolan's Batman does the same – rather than with Nolan himself. That's a frustration I can understand. But I don't understand penalising one director for doing something the other filmmaker did more excessively.

Of course there's nothing wrong with discussing the faults in a film, but I can't remember the last time anyone on Batman-Online said anything nice about Nolan. The negative stuff's gotten really disproportionate. He made three of the most critically and commercially successful Batman films of all time, restoring the franchise's dignity in the eyes of the general public. If it wasn't for the success of Nolan's films, I doubt we would have gotten the Arkham games or many of the recent animated films. Yet instead of celebrating this triumphant chapter in Batman's history, all we do is tear it down and focus on the negative.

I'm not saying people shouldn't discuss the flaws in his films, and I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing so. It would just be nice if we could discuss the good aspects of his films once in a while without every thread degenerating into Nolan hate.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30Well, it did obviously bother you a bit that people disagree with you, otherwise, you would not have taken the time to compose such a comprehensive presentation of your opinion. But that's natural - human instinct - to be bothered by opposition, so don't deny it with an off-the-cuff remark - embrace and acknowledge it as what fueled your self-expression.   and people have been slagging Nicholson's Joker for years, btw.

Pardon my slowness, but you've lost me here. Does this refer to something I wrote in an earlier post?

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30*incidentally, the theory that anarchy & chaos is fair is not particularly outlandish or farfetched. It's basically true, and so even his motivations - though it all sounds good for a crazy person to say - are not mad.

and don't misunderstand me, sir - or misquote me, i never said a thing about diminished intellect, nor did i imply that insanity leads to it. Mental clarity, however, is nearly always compromised in the insane, & Ledger's Joker is totally clear-headed & with a logical motive.

Fair point.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30I'd also like to point out that 3/4 of what you listed there didn't make the final cut of the film

Actually most of the stuff I listed was in the film. If you mean we don't see the scheming itself dramatised, then that's true. We don't see that in The Dark Knight either. In both films we see the results of scheming in the form of action.

The Joker didn't randomly kill Ricorso on the spur of the moment. He has all his goons disguised as mimes mingling with the crowd, with a getaway car stationed just down the street. It was all planned out. Similarly there was nothing random about his attack on the museum. He phoned Vicki hours in advance, rigged gas canisters to the building's ventilation system, and even arranged to have a gas mask delivered to her table just prior to the attack. Totally premeditated and meticulously timed. Even the vandalism was planned in advance, as they made sure to bring all the paint they'd need to trash the art. Nicholson's Joker does a few spontaneous things, like shooting Bob or the "I'm melting!" bit. But when it comes to his main schemes to poison Gotham and kill Batman, his actions were every bit as calculating and premeditated as Ledger's Joker.

But I see what you're saying about spontaneous and irrational actions. He certainly displays a lot more of them than Ledger's Joker.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30the unearthing/breaking down of a CIA nerve toxin

That's what the Joker was doing when he was cutting out photographs of dead bodies. Look on the desk and you'll see the CIA files from which he acquired the photos.


We know about his aptitude for chemistry from his police file, and Batman verbally explains to Vicki how he broke down the poison into a compound to taint "hundreds of chemicals at the source". Nicholson's Joker is a brilliant chemist in addition to his other qualities. As is the Joker in the comics.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30timed poisoning of the GCPD

That was unfortunately ignored in the final cut. Which leads to the plot hole of why the police make no effort to interfere with the Joker's parade at the end of the film. It also makes the Joker's trip to Vicki's apartment rather pointless. He had an interesting reason for going there in the original script.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30& mass production of counterfeit bank notes are all completely ignored in the final cut

We see the Joker throwing the banknotes to the crowd in the finished film. We just don't see a close-up shot of his face on them. Which is a pity, as the scene was a nice payoff for his earlier line about wanting his "face on the one dollar bill". Nevertheless, both the novelisation and comic book adaptation make it clear the banknotes were counterfeit.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30Although... due to a lot of what you've said, the impression I get is that you misinterpreted quite a bit here as people nitpicking & trying to bring Nolan & his films down. Which generally, they weren't.

I honestly think a lot of it is nitpicking. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30You say that the thread has become one sided - to some degree, you're right,

Not just this thread, but discussion of the Nolan films in general. A lot of users joined Batman-Online as refugees from places like the IMDb and Batman-On-Film precisely because of how unbalanced the discussions had become on those sites. A climate of hostility towards Burton's films had emerged, where people were blindly worshipping Nolan and refusing to acknowledge any merit in Burton's films whatsoever. And I'm afraid a similar climate of intolerance has emerged towards Nolan's films on Batman-Online.

A few years ago I wouldn't have hesitated to start a thread on this site about any aspect of Nolan's films, because I knew I could get a fair, even discussion here. But now, if I want a balanced discussion about Nolan's films, I think I'd have to go somewhere else. I stopped posting on the IMDb Batman pages years ago because every thread ended up getting derailed by Burton haters. Now the exact same thing would happen here if I tried starting a thread about some aspect of Nolan's movies. We used to have a site rule that prohibited Burton vs. Nolan threads, precisely so we could avoid uneven fanboy comparisons. But that rule seems to have gone out the window now...

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30but you have to expect that sort of thing on a discussion forum. How could you not?

When did I say I didn't? Good conversation thrives on the civil exchange of opposing viewpoints. But Nolan haters also have to expect that if they come to a Batman fan site and start trashing one of the most beloved versions of Batman, then Batman fans are inevitably going to offer rebuttals to their criticisms. It doesn't mean their views are wrong, just that a lot of Batman fans will disagree with them.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30Much of what has been written here has been legitimate criticism,

Some of it has been legitimate. But not all. At least not in my opinion.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30& when it wasn't, it was simply people expressing their opinions in a pretty diplomatic way, which happen to go against the opinions of the majority (and apparently, you.)

If I've given the impression that I'm trying to moderate or police these boards, or in any way suppress freedom of speech, then I apologise. That's not my intent.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30For the first time in years, a group of people are discussing Ledger & the Nolan films in realistic terms instead of mythic ones, & to be honest, I think that might have caught you a bit off guard.

Oh, it hasn't caught me off guard at all. And it's not the first time it's happened in years. Not on this site. I'm afraid it's been going on here for a long time now. Mostly since around 2010/2011. Being relatively new to the site, you wouldn't have noticed the change. But the general attitude towards Nolan on these boards used to be a lot fairer. Sure, we'd call him out over his mistakes. But we also gave credit where credit was due.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30Which is natural, because you are among the ones who find the films to be great.

I don't recall ever saying they were great films. I just don't think they're the worthless, celluloid faecal matter certain other site members are making them out to be. As long-time site members will attest, I've voiced plenty of criticism of Nolan's films in the past. But I also celebrated their strengths. They don't have to be either masterpieces of disasters. A moderate viewpoint is possible.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30But most of the people who posted recently in defense of Jack aren't Burton or Nicholson fanatics –

I really don't want to sound like I'm pulling seniority of posting history or anything like that, but if you'd been on the site as long as I have, and had spent as much time chatting with these guys as I have, you'd know that most of the people trashing Nolan in this thread are diehard Burton fans. That doesn't make their opinion any less valid, of course.

I think perhaps a little site history may help shed light on the issue. Batman-Online was originally a fan site for Batman 89 and Batman Returns called Batman Movie Online. All other Batman products – the comics, the TV shows, the videogames, and the Schumacher and Nolan films – were confined to a subsection of the site. Over time the site grew and expanded to become more of a general Batman site, unaffiliated with any one specific interpretation. But if you look at the number of posts for each section of the site, you'll find that the Burton boards have over 11,000 posts, while the Nolan boards have barely 4,000. There has always been a pro-Burton bias on this site. I'm biased myself. Look at the features I've written for the site and you'll see I put more effort into defending Batman Returns than any other film. I did that because I felt the criticism of the movie, especially with regards to its comic accuracy, was overwhelmingly unjust. In most of the threads criticising Nolan's films – which, unfortunately, has become more or less every Nolan thread since 2012 – I've either not participated or I've added my own criticisms to the mix.

This is the first time in ages I've actually bothered to offer rebuttals to other people's criticisms, because I think the range of views here needs to be evened out. Otherwise we risk alienating prospective new sites members who may visit us only to be deterred by all the Nolan hate.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30nor do they bear any great resentment for Ledger, Nolan or Bale.

Their posting histories suggest otherwise.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30As you can tell from my post, the unremitting worship of Heath's performance is something i find a little exhausting, so i took advantage of the fact that I'd found somewhere on the web where it was actually safe to say I didn't find his performance to be oscar-worthy, that to me the Dark Knight Trilogy felt like color-washed action/cop dramas that spoke at length of a number of ponderous, philosophical themes without actually exploring them.

And that's a valid viewpoint. I've no problem with you expressing it.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30I probably didn't word my Joker post as gracefully as i should have; some of what i wrote was a little boorish & abrasive,

There was nothing wrong with your post. If there's a problem here, it's apparently me having given the impression of criticising you, which was not my intention. I'm sorry if I did that. You should feel free to express yourself any way you like.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30But alas, he wasn't referring to Batman Returns. As you yourself are keen to point out, we should be cognizant of that to which we're reacting

The function of riddler's post was to compare the discernibility of flaws in Burton's films against those in Nolan's. In the third sentence of his post, he wrote "the burton films ". Plural. Maybe I should have quoted the entire paragraph, but I just assumed everyone would understand what I meant.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30though Batman '89 is not without it's flaws, as he stated, they (apart from the subjective stuff) aren't particularly obvious (narrative things, etc.); it's a very different film from Batman Returns, which, in my opinion, was rife with them.

Agreed.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30Ah, I see what you mean. But all too often I've seen fans cite the realistic setting/relentlessly bleak & serious tone/grandiose nature of Nolan's films as an excuse to gloss over all the plot holes, inconsistencies with the source material, and lapses in internal logic. Many of these same people hold Burton's films, the Adam West TV show or anything that wasn't directed by Christopher Nolan up to an impossible level of scrutiny, just so they can tear them down.

so, you see? it goes both ways, doesn't it?

Yes, it does.

Which is precisely the point I was trying to make with Laughing Fish. It's hypocritical to chastise the behaviour of one fanbase, then do the exact same thing ourselves. If we can see how idiotic it is when others do it, why is it any less idiotic when we do it?

Although I have to say, I've never heard anyone cite "realistic setting/relentlessly bleak & serious tone/grandiose nature" as an excuse to gloss over the plot holes in Nolan's films. Usually they'll offer justifications – some good, some bad – but never just "because its' realistic/bleak/serious". I have, however, heard many Burton fans dismiss gaping plot holes in his films on the basis that they're meant to be fairytales, and therefore exempt from internal logic.

Quote from: The_Batman_of_1989 on Sat,  9 Aug  2014, 06:30at any rate, my intention is not to cause some kind of flare-up, i just wanted to clear the air on where i stand & use the forum for what it was intended - to express my personal views on various batman related media, and to maybe get people to consider things in a different light. i see it says you're on the staff, so i'll say thanks for letting me diddle around on the forum.

And you're very welcome here. I've never modified anyone's posts on this site, except to move/merge topics on the comic boards into the appropriate location. Provided it's within the site rules (no swearing, politics, etc) no one will ever censor your posts here. We need all the new members we can get to keep the discussions fresh. Don't let my long-winded rambling posts put you off. And try not to let them put you to sleep either.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 20 Aug  2014, 19:48
I don't think it was cruel. Alfred got exactly what he wanted: he got to live out his retirement in Tuscany, assured in the knowledge that Bruce was finally out of danger and living a happy normal life with someone he loved. Fox assumed control over Wayne Enterprises. Gordon also looked pretty happy at the end. Order had been restored to his city and he no longer had to cover for Dent's crimes. Blake got to see all the orphaned kids in Gotham receive a new home and a better way of life. And Bruce entrusted him with his greatest secret, leaving him the option of becoming the new Batman if he so chose. Bruce took care of everyone.

Be though as it may, I still think he could've managed to do all of that without having to fake his death as Bruce Wayne. He could've announced to hand over all his assets to his close friends while announcing his desire to leave Gotham for good. Sure, it may be less 'dramatic' and 'compelling' to watch but it's certainly more logical than Bruce Wayne fooling everyone into thinking he died.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 20 Aug  2014, 19:48
If someone says they loved a film when it first came out, but love it less now they've had time to think about it, then I can understand that. But if someone says they loved a film when they first saw it, but now hate it passionately and think it's unredeemable 0/10 drivel, then I find that a little hard to believe. Films don't change over time, only people's attitudes towards them. And for someone's attitude to change so radically in just a year or two suggests an external influence has likely affected their opinion.

I think lots of people here fall in the first category you mentioned. I haven't seen, or at least don't remember right now, someone saying they loved TDK the first time they saw it but now they completely hate it. Some of the users here who used to love it seem to still have some respect for it, which is very different compared to someone like me who never liked it.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 20 Aug  2014, 19:48
Nolan worshippers didn't waste time trashing the sixties Batman or Schumacher's films, because those weren't perceived as a threat. They did target Burton's film because those were regarded as the classic 'dark' and 'serious' Batman films to beat. Likewise Burton fans aren't currently threatened by Snyder's film. I think for several reasons.

I'll be judging Snyder's movie and characterization of Batman by merit. If it's good, great, I'll embrace it as part of many Batman interpretations I like e.g. Adam West, Burton, BTAS, Bronze Age, Arkham games etc. I couldn't care less what film critics say; in fact, I don't find any of them credible at all. I even disagree with critical reviews for movies that I did like! And I certainly couldn't care less if stupid fanboys have to tear down Burton in favour of Snyder's take.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 20 Aug  2014, 19:48
Nolan's fans criticise Batman for killing in Burton's films but don't acknowledge him killing in the Dark Knight trilogy? Well that's the fans' mistake, not Nolan's.

I say it's both. Those type of fans are indeed clueless, but that doesn't mean that Nolan should escape any criticism for wanting to have his cake and eat it too. Like I was trying to say before, no matter how contradictory Burton's Batman was towards the end of BR, it's no more egregious than Nolan's Batman constant flip-flopping in ALL three films. Put that together with Batman saying "No guns, no killing" to Catwoman but then uses guns to kill Talia, that makes it worse than anything that Burton's Batman did in my opinion.

RE: Arkham City, agreed, although I do remember that someone on another forum argued that Batman technically 'killed' Solomon Grundy, although Grundy was a zombie. Interesting. Let's not forget that Batman tried to save Ra's after Wonder Tower blew up but was forced to back away when Ra's tried to kill him while committing suicide.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 20 Aug  2014, 19:48
He literally had no choice in that situation. Talia and her driver would have been dead in a couple of minutes anyway once the bomb went off, along with everyone else in Gotham. Batman's objective was not to kill, but to save life. If he hadn't taken that course of action, he would have condemned the entire population of Gotham to death through inaction.

I'm certainly aware he had no choice, but once again it goes back to the argument I was trying to make: if Batman knows deep down that lethal force is required when too many lives are at stake, then what was the point of him not killing the Joker? Joker was threatening to kill thousands of people stranded on the boats; not to mention he already killed a lot of people before that. I'll go even further by suggesting that Batman is endangering everyone in Gotham for not killing the Joker because the latter proved if he can escape from jail the first time he's locked up, then he's capable of anything. Logically speaking - by not killing him, Batman is allowing the risk of a deranged madman to escape from jail one day and do more harm. This is something I've always had a problem with modern comics and even in the Arkham games, but at least Batman in those stories was consistent with his actions, unlike Nolan and Burton to a lesser extent.

You may argue that Ra's and Talia al Ghul were more of a threat than Joker for trying to destroy Gotham completely, but it can be argued that Joker would've the done the same thing if he had his way. I don't believe he was any less dangerous than either of those two or Bane.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 20 Aug  2014, 19:48
I think the difference lies in the fact that Batman was originally conceived as a character that killed, whereas Superman wasn't. Batman's meant to be a dark, sinister character. Superman isn't.

Be though as it may, it annoys me that many people who revere Nolan's films tend to claim the trilogy makes Batman as a 'symbol' that inspires people. But then they quickly to change their tune by saying "Batman is a dark character" whenever it's convenient. Don't get me wrong BTW, I'm not saying you're one of those people, but it's an observation that falls in line with fans who have double standards.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 20 Aug  2014, 19:48
What really ticked off a lot of people about the Zod scene was that it just wasn't necessary. It wasn't even in the original script. The film was originally supposed to end with Zod getting drawn into the Phantom Zone along with all the other Kryptonians. And since the film was already a little overlong to begin with, they probably should have stuck with that original ending. Then they could have had Zod return in a later film.

By that rationale alone, fair enough. I actually really liked Zod as a villain. But in saying that at least I bought the idea that Superman was caught in a life or death situation since he had no possible alternatives to stop Zod, who managed to avoid the Phantom Zone. Superman killing Zod wasn't too different than Batman killing off Ra's, Two-Face or Talia, but at least he didn't pretend to have a moral code, nor did he ever contradict himself either. On top of the fact that unlike Batman, Superman was devastated that he had to take a life to save others. And regarding the overlong ending, the same thing could easily be said about each ending in Nolan's films, but I digress.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 20 Aug  2014, 19:48
But that was an accident. If Batman had intended to kill Two-Face, he would have snuck up on him and done it quickly and quietly. His objective in that scene was to rescue Gordon's son, not to kill Dent. He didn't consciously break his moral code, so there's no contradiction in his ethics.

Mate with all due respect, I think you're clutching at straws here. Dent's death looked anything but accidental. If you recklessly lunge at someone who is standing right on the edge of a building and knock them over, the chances are you will likely kill that person. If Batman was really unaware of that, then he really is an idiot. But if Batman tried to wrestle with Dent to get the gun away from him, but Dent suddenly tripped by accident and fell to his death, then yes I'd agree. Instead, Batman literally threw caution out the window and pushes Dent right off the building, going down with him. Sure, the first objective was to save Gordon's son...but then again why did he use restraint against a mass-murdering psychopath who was killing people left, right and center, and nearly killed a thousand more?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 20 Aug  2014, 19:48
Another interpretation I've encountered for that scene is that it represents the Joker's ideological triumph over Batman. The Joker tried to engineer a situation between the two ferries where one good person would cause the deaths of others. He failed at that, but he essentially succeeded in doing the same thing with Dent, Gordon and Batman. He created a scenario where either Dent – the city's paragon of virtue, its 'White Knight' – would kill an innocent, or else Batman, Gordon or some other GCPD officer would be forced to kill Dent. This ended the film on a morally gray note that's open to interpretation. Yes, Batman defeated the Joker by capturing him, but did the Joker defeat Batman on a more meaningful level?

Considering Batman already got his hands dirty in BB, I'd say the Joker didn't need to force any outcome against Batman at all.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 20 Aug  2014, 19:48
The realism/fantasy issue is perhaps the biggest problem I have with the criticism of Nolan. It holds Nolan accountable to a manifesto to which he never actually committed himself. He may use certain techniques characteristic of cinéma vérité, but he's never claimed his films are kitchen sink dramas or 100% true to reality. Only that they were intended to have a more grounded sensibility than the older Batman films. He wanted Gotham to look like a real city and not like a soundstage. I think he accomplished that goal. He wanted to explore the functionality and origin of Batman's arsenal. And while he did probably overdo the expository dialogue, it was all in the pursuit of showing us an aspect of the mythos that the previous films had overlooked. He set out to make a Batman film that was more realistic than its predecessors, not to make a documentary about real crime in Chicago. It's the fans who've distorted his motives into something they can attack.

While I don't have a problem with Gotham turned into a realistic city, it's nothing new that I haven't seen before because almost every other superhero movie is set in a real city. And call me crazy, but I think showing things like how every piece of Batman's equipment works is a waste of time. It doesn't really add anything to the plot, and we can use our imagination how he assembles his equipment: he's rich. This is a similar problem I had with the first Iron Man movie, which as much as I liked it, I could've done without the overlong scenes of Tony Stark building his armored suit during the entire second act.

The thing is, once again, people like me simply thought Nolan's attempt at realism was poorly executed. If you're going for a more realistic movie and one that takes itself so seriously, then some of us simply expect for the movie to do better than wanting us to believe a man can survive a deadly disfigurement, or a man could simply recover a serious back injury by getting his vertebra punched. Nolan's films are not any more realistic than your standard action film, so one shouldn't get all surprised if people are annoyed if the movies change certain "comic-booky" characteristics while at the same time go for other ideas that are just as unrealistic, like the aforementioned examples. If the director wants to keep all of that, fine - the film shouldn't take itself so seriously then, and I think it's wrong to assume that most people have an agenda against Nolan in favour of Burton's or whoever else.

As for BR, if your argument is that it's not a masterpiece either, I definitely agree with you. But like it or not for some people, the combination of the two tones help them find it watchable - it works for them and they most of them KNOW the film isn't pretending to be high art. It might have subtext here and there, but for some people, it's a film where they can enjoy it for what it is, popcorn fun. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But if you're arguing that too many people think it's a masterpiece, fine. As for TDK Trilogy being a crime drama - I think that's an insult to the genre. Frank Miller's Year One was closer to that sort of genre, but this trilogy does a poor attempt of that.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 20 Aug  2014, 19:48
I also think it's unfair to criticise Batman's moral hypocrisy in Nolan's films, while giving Burton a free pass for doing the exact same thing in Batman Returns.

When it comes to Batman's ethics, I get the impression you're more frustrated with the double standard displayed by Nolan's fans – criticising Burton's Batman for killing and refusing to acknowledge instances when Nolan's Batman does the same – rather than with Nolan himself. That's a frustration I can understand. But I don't understand penalising one director for doing something the other filmmaker did more excessively.

Again, no matter how contradictory Burton's Batman was towards the end of BR, I don't think it's any more egregious than Nolan's Batman constant flip-flopping in ALL three films.

Look, if Nolan had made it very clear that Batman wasn't open to killing anyone unless the stakes are too high, nobody would've complained in the first place. If Bruce had said "I won't kill a defenseless human being" in the sense that person is already beaten, that's fine; and that the film didn't lead people into believing he won't kill at all. Because when you have the character do something that's completely opposite of what he had just declared moments before regardless whether he meant to do or not, well I'm sorry but that's just not good storytelling. But you know what's the worst thing about Bruce in that scene in the temple? After getting who knows how many people killed, he didn't seem too affected by it at all. And this was shortly after it was revealed what the League's true goal was was, and yet it still didn't didn't phase him. For all the talk about how 'more realistic' these films are, none of the characters come across as if they're actual human beings. And that sort of stupidity ruins the film's verisimilitude for me. And that's not only one example where Nolan's Batman never really look bothered that he killed anyone. Compare that to how Superman reacted after killing Zod in Man of Steel, or how horrified Oliver Queen felt when he first killed a mercenary on the island in Arrow, that's pretty bad.

Once again, the fact that Nolan's Batman thought killing Ra's and Talia al Ghul and Two-Face was necessary only makes his sparing of the Joker no sense at all and even more reprehensible, unless you want to argue that Joker was not a bigger threat than any of them. If Joker appeared and killed again in the TDKR then people might have realised what I meant, but Joker was never played again due to tragic circumstances in real life. No matter what Burton's Batman said, at least he was more consistent with who he killed compared to this, and those he didn't never continued to cause mayhem like the Nolan's Joker did (and, for the record, I always believed Burton's Batman killed all the crooks at Axis Chemicals, the flame breather and strongman in BR).

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 20 Aug  2014, 19:48
Of course there's nothing wrong with discussing the faults in a film, but I can't remember the last time anyone on Batman-Online said anything nice about Nolan. The negative stuff's gotten really disproportionate. He made three of the most critically and commercially successful Batman films of all time, restoring the franchise's dignity in the eyes of the general public. If it wasn't for the success of Nolan's films, I doubt we would have gotten the Arkham games or many of the recent animated films. Yet instead of celebrating this triumphant chapter in Batman's history, all we do is tear it down and focus on the negative.

I'm not saying people shouldn't discuss the flaws in his films, and I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing so. It would just be nice if we could discuss the good aspects of his films once in a while without every thread degenerating into Nolan hate.

I don't know about that, I'm pretty sure Arkham Asylum and City were planned for quite some time, and most of the animated films are based on comics that had existed ten to more than twenty years ago (i.e. Under the Red Hood, TDK Returns).

Movies tend to be subjective anyway, it's not based on what critics say, how much money it makes at the box office or even how popular it is. People may like whatever they want, but I do think they need to brought down a peg to realize these films are not that great at the very least. Honestly, I think it's about time more people begin to have a clearer evaluation on how good these movies really are. It wouldn't surprise me that some people are sick and tired that these films are seen as the benchmark and yet they have even more problems than other movies have been accused of having. Are people focusing on the negatives more? Perhaps, but given the mess his scripts are despite how serious the movies are, I think that's fair game.

Once again, I don't speak for anyone else apart my own, but I stand what I said about Nolan's movies and I don't find Nolan in particular to be a very good storyteller in the slightest. The only movies I liked from Nolan were Memento and The Prestige. But otherwise I find nothing intellectual or clever in any of his movies, especially these ones. Aside from being rather boring, they're not even intelligent. And yes, I believe it's a terrible interpretation of Batman and I stand by that.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47Be though as it may, I still think he could've managed to do all of that without having to fake his death as Bruce Wayne. He could've announced to hand over all his assets to his close friends while announcing his desire to leave Gotham for good. Sure, it may be less 'dramatic' and 'compelling' to watch but it's certainly more logical than Bruce Wayne fooling everyone into thinking he died.

The other thing to remember is that Bruce's life was already in ruins before he fought Bane. Bane had taken almost everything from him. And while Bruce probably could have straightened most of that out, it would have taken a long time and placed his own financial affairs under an uncomfortable level of scrutiny. Add to that the fact that many people out there knew his secret identity - the people who witnessed his first fight against Bane, and the people in the Pit - and the life of Bruce Wayne becomes even less secure. Faking his own death was the simplest way to protect himself from reprisals. If everyone thinks he's dead then no one can blackmail him or hunt him down.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47RE: Arkham City, agreed, although I do remember that someone on another forum argued that Batman technically 'killed' Solomon Grundy, although Grundy was a zombie. Interesting. Let's not forget that Batman tried to save Ra's after Wonder Tower blew up but was forced to back away when Ra's tried to kill him while committing suicide.

Indeed. Another very good example.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47I'll go even further by suggesting that Batman is endangering everyone in Gotham for not killing the Joker because the latter proved if he can escape from jail the first time he's locked up, then he's capable of anything. Logically speaking - by not killing him, Batman is allowing the risk of a deranged madman to escape from jail one day and do more harm. This is something I've always had a problem with modern comics and even in the Arkham games, but at least Batman in those stories was consistent with his actions, unlike Nolan and Burton to a lesser extent.

There is something to be said for the comic book Batman killing the Joker, and the real reason it's never happened is because DC needs to keep their most popular villain alive. But the same situation doesn't necessarily exist in Nolan's universe. Bale's Batman doesn't know for certain that the Joker will ever escape again and kill more people. It's far more likely the Ledger Joker would receive the death penalty anyway after all the trouble he'd caused. But that shouldn't really be Batman's decision to make.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47By that rationale alone, fair enough. I actually really liked Zod as a villain.

Have you heard the rumours about Luthor using Zod's remains as part of his scheme in BvS? If it's true, we might see some variation of Zod returning after all. Maybe Bizarro Zod?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47On top of the fact that unlike Batman, Superman was devastated that he had to take a life to save others.

Superman appeared devastated during the same scene, but in the subsequent scenes he appeared perfectly happy and content. That's what I mean when I say I'm waiting to see how they follow up on it in BvS. His guilt has to be long lasting, not just a transient spur of the moment thing. Frankly, I'd prefer not to have a Superman burdened with a guilt complex in his very first movie. But since Snyder's backed us into that corner, the issue needs to be addressed.

And Batman definitely did show remorse over Dent's death. He didn't scream "Noooooooo!" like Darth Vader, but the regret was definitely there in Bale's performance during that final scene between him and Oldman. There was sorrow during Talia's death scene too, but the plot moved along so quick that we didn't have time to explore it in great depth. I admit he wasn't too cut up over Ra's though. But unlike the deaths of Dent and Talia, Ra's death was something he wanted.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47And regarding the overlong ending, the same thing could easily be said about each ending in Nolan's films, but I digress.

I strongly agree. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to the cinema in recent years, enjoyed the first two acts of a film, only to find myself dozing off during the overblown CGI finale. Its a common problem in practically every modern blockbuster. Even the good ones. I think it has something to do with producers not wanting to cut effects footage they've spent so much money on.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47Mate with all due respect, I think you're clutching at straws here. Dent's death looked anything but accidental. If you recklessly lunge at someone who is standing right on the edge of a building and knock them over, the chances are you will likely kill that person.

Batman knocked himself and Gordon's son over the ledge too. Doesn't mean he intended to commit suicide and take Gordon Jr with him.

Batman was still injured from the beating the Joker gave him, and the point-blank bullet to his gut didn't do him any favours either. He was weakened and acting in desperation. Dent flipped the coin and Batman had less than a second to react. So he hurled himself at him, and all three of them went over the edge together in the struggle. It was a clumsy action for sure, and it resulted in Dent's death. But it wasn't done for the express purpose of ending his life. If Batman could have prevented Two-Face from falling, he would have, just as he'd saved the Joker in the previous scene. But he had Gordon's son in one arm, and his other arm was occupied holding on for dear life. Once the three of them tumbled over the precipice, there was nothing Batman could do to save Dent.


If he'd really wanted to kill Dent, why did he reveal himself to him and engage him in conversation? He could have simply snuck up behind him and snapped his neck if that was his real objective. I just don't believe for a second that Batman consciously chose to end Dent's life. It was a clumsy accident resulting from desperate action.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47Sure, the first objective was to save Gordon's son...but then again why did he use restraint against a mass-murdering psychopath who was killing people left, right and center, and nearly killed a thousand more?

The difference between a soldier and an executioner is a soldier kills in battle, whereas an executioner kills prisoners who've already lost the battle and are at their mercy. Killing the Joker once he'd defeated him would have been an execution.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47And call me crazy, but I think showing things like how every piece of Batman's equipment works is a waste of time. It doesn't really add anything to the plot, and we can use our imagination how he assembles his equipment: he's rich.

But it's not simply about money. It's also about the element of secrecy and showing how those devices fit into the bat-motif. That's a narrative in itself, and one that's been told in the comics, but never in a previous movie. In Batman 89 the Joker asks "Where does he get those wonderful toys?" Batman Begins answered that question, and I've heard a lot of people say it's one of their favourite aspects of the film. It explains the logical rationale behind things which might otherwise seem silly. Comic fans already understood that rationale, but a lot of general audience members didn't.

It's also important to remember that the previous film, Batman and Robin (1997), had been heavily criticised for showing Batman whip out an endless supply of improbable items on the spur of the moment (bat-skates, bat credit card, an endless number of grappling lines, etc). By offering a more grounded approach to Batman's arsenal of weapons, Nolan was promising the audience he wouldn't make the same mistake.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47If you're going for a more realistic movie and one that takes itself so seriously, then some of us simply expect for the movie to do better than wanting us to believe a man can survive a deadly disfigurement, or a man could simply recover a serious back injury by getting his vertebra punched.

But they're fantasy films. As you yourself say:

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47Nolan's films are not any more realistic than your standard action film,

The 'realism' in Nolan's films essentially boils down to a greater emphasis on logical process (explaining the rationale behind the outwardly irrational), allusions to contemporary social anxieties (post-9/11 angst, terrorism, compromised security, etc) and a visual language that makes the stories feel more immediate and less removed from our own lives (Gotham being a real city instead of an artificial fantasy construct, a more realistic portrayal of how the police/government might react to a comic book crisis). But ultimately they're still superhero fantasy films.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47the film shouldn't take itself so seriously then

I saw The Dark Knight a few times when it first came out, but didn't watch it much in the years that followed. Last year I finally watched it again and I was struck by two things. Firstly, the movie was funnier than I remembered it being. Secondly, it wasn't anywhere near as dark and serious as I remembered it being. You may find the same thing if you give it another chance.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47and I think it's wrong to assume that most people have an agenda against Nolan in favour of Burton's or whoever else.

On a Tim Burton Batman fan site, it's not that much of a stretch.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47As for BR, if your argument is that it's not a masterpiece either, I definitely agree with you.

Don't get me wrong, I love Batman Returns, warts and all. I was just trying to illustrate how it's possible to highlight two apparently contrasting aspects of a film and use that disparity as a basis for criticism. I think the contrasting tones of Batman Returns make it interesting and unique. I feel the same way about the contrast between fantasy and realism in The Dark Knight.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47But like it or not for some people, the combination of the two tones help them find it watchable - it works for them and they most of them KNOW the film isn't pretending to be high art.

Exactly.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47As for TDK Trilogy being a crime drama - I think that's an insult to the genre. Frank Miller's Year One was closer to that sort of genre, but this trilogy does a poor attempt of that.

All Batman films are crime dramas on some level. Even the 1966 film. Crime fiction is a broad genre with many diverse subdivisions.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47Look, if Nolan had made it very clear that Batman wasn't open to killing anyone unless the stakes are too high, nobody would've complained in the first place. If Bruce had said "I won't kill a defenseless human being" in the sense that person is already beaten, that's fine

But that's exactly what he did say: "I'm no executioner [...] I will go back to Gotham and I will fight men like this, but I will not become an executioner." Killing Ra's was effectively an execution. Killing the Joker once he'd defeated him would have been an execution. Killing Dent in the struggle to save Gordon's son wasn't; Dent was in control of that situation, not Batman. The same goes for Talia.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47But you know what's the worst thing about Bruce in that scene in the temple? After getting who knows how many people killed, he didn't seem too affected by it at all.

To be fair, we don't get to see Bruce's reaction to what happened. We go straight from the explosion to the scene of him saving Ducard/Ra's. I doubt he was too happy about the way things turned out. The fact he didn't stick around to wait for Ra's to awaken tells us he must have felt pretty bad about what happened.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47For all the talk about how 'more realistic' these films are, none of the characters come across as if they're actual human beings.

Are real human beings one hundred percent consistent all of the time?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 04:47I don't know about that, I'm pretty sure Arkham Asylum and City were planned for quite some time, and most of the animated films are based on comics that had existed ten to more than twenty years ago (i.e. Under the Red Hood, TDK Returns).

The Arkham games – particularly the glider mechanics – were heavily influenced by Nolan's films, and I doubt Warner Bros would have put so much money into making those games had it not been for the renewed interest in Batman that followed the release of Batman Begins. A few Batman games had been released after Batman and Robin came out, but they were much smaller, cheaper games than the Arkham series. It was Nolan who revitalised the public interest in the franchise, thereby making a big budget video game commercially viable.

With regards to the animated films, they were originally supposed to feature lots of different DC characters. And the early films followed through with that idea. But if you look at the recent and upcoming films, they're all based around Batman. Sadly the films featuring Wonder Woman, Green Lantern and the other characters simply didn't sell amongst the general public, so now what was meant to be a DC universe series has been reduced to a Bat-centric series. Here in the UK they haven't even released most of the non-Batman animated films. And why is the general public so much more receptive to animated Batman films than any other superhero? And why, since 2008, has that receptivity become such a lucrative cash cow for Warner Bros?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 21:25
Faking his own death was the simplest way to protect himself from reprisals. If everyone thinks he's dead then no one can blackmail him or hunt him down.

Of course, if he doesn't disguise himself like in the end of the movie, it'll be a matter of time till everyone in the world finds out he's still alive.  ;)

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 21:25
Have you heard the rumours about Luthor using Zod's remains as part of his scheme in BvS? If it's true, we might see some variation of Zod returning after all. Maybe Bizarro Zod?

I'd take all rumours for that movie right now with a grain of salt.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 21:25
And Batman definitely did show remorse over Dent's death.

Not from what I saw. But then again I thought Bale's acting in these movies have been so incredibly poor for someone of his caliber. Having said that, I thought he showed one moment of humanity when he was stabbed by Talia.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 21:25
I strongly agree. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to the cinema in recent years, enjoyed the first two acts of a film, only to find myself dozing off during the overblown CGI finale. Its a common problem in practically every modern blockbuster. Even the good ones. I think it has something to do with producers not wanting to cut effects footage they've spent so much money on.

I was actually trying to say Nolan's films have poor pacing too, but yes, I do agree that most films with CGI tend to be overlong nowadays.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 21:25
If he'd really wanted to kill Dent, why did he reveal himself to him and engage him in conversation?

Look, I know what you're trying to say, but I just found the whole scene completely unconvincing and poorly staged. I know you're trying to reason that he was injured by the time he faced Dent, but Batman still wasn't weak enough to not lunge at him. Regardless how desperate, I thought it was utterly ridiculous and deadly for Batman to do that. If Batman wanted to stop Dent then he could've simply snuck Dent from behind like a ninja and disable him. You know, like he used to in Batman Begins? After all, it was unbelievable that Gordon, his wife or Dent failed to notice that Batman was still alive and leaped out of nowhere like that. No matter how desperate, if you lunge at two people standing on the edge like that then you should expect the worst to happen, but the way it especially happened so quickly just made what should have been a tragic scene so laughable.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 21:25
The difference between a soldier and an executioner is a soldier kills in battle, whereas an executioner kills prisoners who've already lost the battle and are at their mercy. Killing the Joker once he'd defeated him would have been an execution.

As you already know though, Nolan wanted to have it both ways because Batman got Ra's killed after he was beaten. So which one is it then? Is Batman a soldier or an executioner?

The ending of the first film had especially opened a can of worms and it was very hard to take hearing Sal Maroni and Joker taunt Batman about his inability to break his "one rule" when we all know he already broke it a long time ago. So no matter what Joker does, Batman won't cross that line...but he will for everyone else when the going gets tough? It's this kind of stupidity that makes Nolan's films vague, moreso than the last few minutes of Batman Returns, and the director has to be blamed for this lack of consistency.

So the hero thought he had to take a lethal course of action under the circumstances against one defeated mass-murderer, but then he restrained himself from doing the same thing against another defeated (and even more heinous) mass-murderer, at the expense of an entire town's safety? That is exactly what I thought when I watched this movie for the first time. Again, people can't be blamed for this if the director wants to have his cake and eat it too. I'd rather a Batman who intends to kill (like Burton) or one who won't kill at all (the comics).

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 21:25
But that's exactly what he did say: "I'm no executioner [...] I will go back to Gotham and I will fight men like this, but I will not become an executioner." Killing Ra's was effectively an execution. Killing the Joker once he'd defeated him would have been an execution. Killing Dent in the struggle to save Gordon's son wasn't; Dent was in control of that situation, not Batman. The same goes for Talia.

See above.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 21:25
But they're fantasy films. As you yourself say:

They sure are fantasy films. I just happen to think they're very bad, shallow fantasy films. Feel free to disagree if you want though.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 21:25
I saw The Dark Knight a few times when it first came out, but didn't watch it much in the years that followed. Last year I finally watched it again and I was struck by two things. Firstly, the movie was funnier than I remembered it being. Secondly, it wasn't anywhere near as dark and serious as I remembered it being. You may find the same thing if you give it another chance.

I've watched this film four times within the last couple of years and my reaction has always been negative. Each time I always thought that the first forty minutes were okay, but the film quickly gets worse towards the half-way mark and becomes harder to watch towards the end. As for the film being funnier than you remembered, eye of the beholder I guess. I don't see anything funny in that film at all, except the poor choice of words line. For me it wasn't really a matter of it being too dark, I just found it to be boring, pretentious, overlong, plodding, full of unlikable characters and mostly poorly acted apart from one or two performances.

I understand that you like the film, and I have no problems with that, but I personally thought it was an overblown piece of crap and have no desire to see it ever again. That being said, TDKR gives me a good laugh here and there I tend to enjoy that as long as I treat it as a comedy.  ;D But like the other two, that film is way too long to watch from start to end.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Thu, 21 Aug  2014, 21:25
Are real human beings one hundred percent consistent all of the time?

No, but it still doesn't change my opinion that Nolan's characters don't feel human at all. Even Arrow's characters feel more humane than TDK, and Arrow is a show full of cheesy soap opera actors.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 03:29I'd take all rumours for that movie right now with a grain of salt.

Very wise.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 03:29Not from what I saw. But then again I thought Bale's acting in these movies have been so incredibly poor for someone of his caliber. Having said that, I thought he showed one moment of humanity when he was stabbed by Talia.

It's difficult to articulate grief through a mask, but Bale did it during that final scene.


It's just a shame about that voice...  :-\

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 03:29I was actually trying to say Nolan's films have poor pacing too, but yes, I do agree that most films with CGI tend to be overlong nowadays.

I enjoy the finales in Nolan's films more than those in most other contemporary blockbusters, chiefly because he favours practical effects over CGI. I also admire him for shooting on 35mm instead of digital.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 03:29If Batman wanted to stop Dent then he could've simply snuck Dent from behind like a ninja and disable him. You know, like he used to in Batman Begins?

He could have done that, but he chose to try reasoning with Harvey instead. This was the first time Batman had encountered him since he'd become Two-Face, and he didn't realise how far gone his mind was. The battle for Gotham's soul was the battle to save Dent. So Batman tried appealing to his good side. He failed. And from that moment on he was at a disadvantage. It was a bad call. He should have snuck up on him and physically disarmed him. But Batman was already staggering and uncoordinated when he left the Joker at the construction site. He then got shot at point-blank range, was lying on the floor (possibly unconscious), and barely reacted in time to see Dent flip his coin. Weakened and at the end of his tether, he desperately lunged at Dent in an attempt to save Gordon's son. It doesn't require skill or strength to simply hurl your body at someone. It was a clumsy uncoordinated action. This was not Batman at his peak like he was in Batman Begins, and he'd already forsaken the element of surprise by revealing himself to Dent.

Batman's human, he makes mistakes. And that whole scene is supposed to represent one of his greatest failures, the consequences of which leave him permanently injured and outlawed. It would make no sense for Batman to want Harvey dead. He even calls Dent a "hero" during that final scene. At no point did he consciously choose to end Harvey's life. So I still maintain there's no contradiction in his ethics. He would have saved Dent just as readily as he saved the Joker, had he been able to.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 03:29As you already know though, Nolan wanted to have it both ways because Batman got Ra's killed after he was beaten. So which one is it then? Is Batman a soldier or an executioner?

He's a soldier. His only conscious lapse from his moral code was when he allowed Ra's to die. All other deaths were collateral accidents resulting from his efforts to save other people. Dent died so Gordon and his family could live. Talia died so everyone in Gotham could live. The objective was always to save life, not to end it. However that's not the case in Burton's films, which contain several instances of Batman ending people's lives unnecessarily in situations where alternatives existed (the fire breather, the tattooed strongman).

Part of what makes Nolan's Batman films interesting is that they place the heroes in situations that are not only physically difficult, but ethically challenging too. Nolan's heroes are constantly confronted with difficult moral decisions, and they don't always choose the right options. The battles are never just purely physical; there's always a moral and psychological layer to them. And that's one of the reasons people enjoy analysing them so much.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 03:29So the hero thought he had to take a lethal course of action under the circumstances against one defeated mass-murderer, but then he restrained himself from doing the same thing against another defeated (and even more heinous) mass-murderer, at the expense of an entire town's safety? That is exactly what I thought when I watched this movie for the first time.

Here you're highlighting one contentious issue in Batman Begins and using it as an excuse to condemn The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. I prefer to evaluate each film independently as self-contained works. I'm not going to condemn Batman Forever as "stupid" because it shows Bruce telling Dick it's wrong to take revenge by killing, even though he did it himself in Batman 89. That doesn't mean both films are flawed, it just means an intertexual disparity exists between them; and that perhaps Batman 89 is at fault for showing Batman deliberately taking human life (debatable).

And once again, you could apply this exact same criticism to Burton's Batman. He won't kill Shreck – a powerful racketeer who controls the media, has tremendous political power, is complicit in all of the Penguin's evil machinations, who tried to kill Selina, who murdered Fred Atkins and who knows how many other people, yet is apparently immune to the law (remember Catwoman's line: "Aren't you tired of this sanctimonious robber baron always coming out on top when he should be six feet under?"). Batman won't kill that guy. But he will happily murder a mindless goon who, as far we know, never did anything more severe than hit a Salvation Army Santa with a toy sleigh.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 03:29I'd rather a Batman who intends to kill (like Burton) or one who won't kill at all (the comics).

The Batman in the comics has killed literally hundreds of people. It doesn't mean it's logical to condemn every issue where he doesn't kill on the basis of their being inconsistent. The issues where he kills are the ones at fault. Likewise the flaw you're outlining relates to Batman Begins. And the very thing you're accusing Nolan of getting wrong in Batman Begins (and I agree with you on that score) is something he got right in the next two films. But you're calling him out for that too. He can't win. It seems that by making one mistake in Batman Begins, he's ruined all the sequels in your eyes.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 03:29They sure are fantasy films. I just happen to think they're very bad, shallow fantasy films. Feel free to disagree if you want though.

I'm afraid I do. But maybe I'm wrong and you're right. Who can say?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 03:29As for the film being funnier than you remembered, eye of the beholder I guess. I don't see anything funny in that film at all, except the poor choice of words line.

Perhaps I should rephrase that. What I meant was there are far more humorous moments in the film than I'd remembered there being. Whether we personally find them funny is immaterial. I don't personally find most of the jokes in the Burton-Schumacher series funny. But the attempt at humour is there. Which is why I don't rate the criticism that The Dark Knight is completely humourless.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 03:29I've watched this film four times within the last couple of years and my reaction has always been negative.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 03:29I understand that you like the film, and I have no problems with that, but I personally thought it was an overblown piece of crap and have no desire to see it ever again.

I hope you don't mind me asking, but if you hate the film so intensely, why have you watched it four times in the last two years? I like the film and I've only watched it twice during that equivalent time span.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 03:29That being said, TDKR gives me a good laugh here and there I tend to enjoy that as long as I treat it as a comedy.  ;D

As you say, eye of the beholder.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 03:29No, but it still doesn't change my opinion that Nolan's characters don't feel human at all. Even Arrow's characters feel more humane than TDK, and Arrow is a show full of cheesy soap opera actors.

I feel the opposite. I don't dislike Arrow per se, but it's got that whole low budget teen soap opera thing that's typical of CW shows. Smallville and Supernatural both had the same vibe, where the actors looked like adolescent GAP models and were clearly cast according to looks rather than acting ability. The writing on those shows all too often emphasises petty interpersonal squabbles in place of meaningful conflict, and that's one of the most common pitfalls inexperienced and unskilled writers fall into. Since the showrunners have often cited Nolan's trilogy as a major influence, the whole series comes off as a teen-oriented Dark Knight-lite. I know the actors aren't really teens, but they radiate an air of immaturity about them. In fairness, that's probably more to do with the way the scripts are written. By contrast, Nolan's films had Oscar-calibre actors playing fully rounded characters struggling with complex moral dilemmas, and each following their own personal arc within the wider overarching narrative. But as you say, it's all subjective. I'm probably being too harsh on Arrow. I haven't seen much of the second season, which I gather is an improvement over the first.

I am looking forward to The Flash series though. I'd rather it wasn't a CW production, but I'll take what I can get in the present DC drought. But I think WB has made a mistake by not connecting these shows to their cinematic universe. Marvel's got Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Agent Carter, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist and The Defenders in production – all TV shows taking place in the MCU. And the characters in those shows will all likely appear in the films at some point, even if only as cameos. Right now WB is trying to cram as many characters into one movie as possible to get their own cinematic universe rolling. They'd be wiser to capitalise on these TV shows to help them catch up.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
The 'realism' in Nolan's films essentially boils down to a greater emphasis on logical process (explaining the rationale behind the outwardly irrational), allusions to contemporary social anxieties (post-9/11 angst, terrorism, compromised security, etc) and a visual language that makes the stories feel more immediate and less removed from our own lives (Gotham being a real city instead of an artificial fantasy construct, a more realistic portrayal of how the police/government might react to a comic book crisis). But ultimately they're still superhero fantasy films.

You mean like the entire police force going underground and stay trapped there for six months? It was already a stretch to the imagination that any cop would agree to work with Batman after he was lucky he didn't kill them during that car chase in the first film, but that part in TDKR was especially laughable. Other superhero films are set in real cities too, but to me, their police and governments aren't any less believable than in Nolan's films.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
I enjoy the finales in Nolan's films more than those in most other contemporary blockbusters, chiefly because he favours practical effects over CGI. I also admire him for shooting on 35mm instead of digital.

Although too many films do tend to make their films longer because they want to display all the CGI they can, I didn't care that Nolan favours practical effects because I found each to be too long than it needed to be, that even the ending feels dragged on.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 03:29

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
If Batman wanted to stop Dent then he could've simply snuck Dent from behind like a ninja and disable him. You know, like he used to in Batman Begins?

He could have done that, but he chose to try reasoning with Harvey instead. This was the first time Batman had encountered him since he'd become Two-Face, and he didn't realise how far gone his mind was.

I actually meant he could've done that after he was shot, and I don't find that completely impossible. After all, this is a Batman who could disappear in a blink of an eye. This is a Batman who could survive deadly incidents such as jumping off a skyscraper building or a multi-storey car park platform and land on top of vehicles (but at the same time we're lead to believe he gets his leg crippled from a much smaller height when Dent died?).  This is a Batman who could repair his broken back by getting his vertebra punched back together, and miraculously recovers from a serious stab wound so quickly.

Slightly off-topic but do now you see what I mean when I find Nolan's films inconsistent in regards to his attempt to make his movies "more realistic"? If he's going to do all of that, then he might as well introduce Solomon Grundy, Clayface, Superman and so on in his movies.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
This was not Batman at his peak like he was in Batman Begins.

What period of time did TDK take place after BB? A year or less? Because he couldn't have deteriorated that quickly, no matter how many scars he had on his body. If we're lead to believe his body was in bad shape, then its because his second suit is less secure and less bulletproof if anything.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
Batman's human, he makes mistakes. And that whole scene is supposed to represent one of his greatest failures, the consequences of which leave him permanently injured and outlawed. It would make no sense for Batman to want Harvey dead.

I'm not complaining that Batman shouldn't ever make mistakes, after all he did make many mistakes in BR. But the scene didn't execute the tragedy of the situation well at all. It would've been far better to me that Batman did lunge at Dent but tried to wrestle with him to grab the gun away, and then Dent accidentally tripped and fell to his death despite Batman's valiant attempts to save him. I really wish that was how the scene worked. Batman's actions might still have been a bit reckless, but it would've been a LOT better than suddenly lunging Dent holding Gordon's son right off the ledge. Of course the boy wasn't going to die, but how dumb would it be if did too? Because the first thought I had that once Batman couldn't reason with Dent, he literally threw caution out the window. I thought he was prepared to kill Harvey to save Gordon's son.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
Part of what makes Nolan's Batman films interesting is that they place the heroes in situations that are not only physically difficult, but ethically challenging too. Nolan's heroes are constantly confronted with difficult moral decisions, and they don't always choose the right options. The battles are never just purely physical; there's always a moral and psychological layer to them. And that's one of the reasons people enjoy analysing them so much.

I'm afraid people tend to give Nolan's films too much credit than they deserve, especially in this regard. And here's why: after Batman killed Ra's al Ghul in BB, Ra's is never mentioned or acknowledged again until TDKR. We have no idea how Bruce felt after he killed his mentor for the remainder of the first film, and Ra's isn't even mentioned at all in TDK. It's only until in TDKR where Talia confronts Batman for killing her father, which Batman acknowledges he did it to save millions of people. Are you seeing where I'm going with this? You can disagree with me with Dent's death all you want, but surely you got to admit that none of the films show how Ra's's death affected Batman, or Batman having any conflicted thoughts about what he'd done, especially when he was dealing with an even more destructive mass-murderer in the second film. It's only in the third film where Batman finally acknowledged he killed Ra's, and he was righteous about it.  Not once did any of the films show that Batman reflected on Ra's death with any regret or remorse. If you want to argue that he did when Talia revealed herself, I doubt it a lot, he was rather desolate that she had betrayed him and was about to blow up Gotham.

* The obvious reason that Ra's had to die is because he knew Batman's true identity and it wouldn't make any sense if he were to return in the sequels and not reveal Batman's real identity to the world (and I thought that was already a stretch when he didn't do that at Bruce's birthday party). If Nolan and Goyer were smart, they could've killed Ra's off like in Arkham City, where Batman's morals remained intact. Instead, they have Batman kill him off, and the character's point about not killing because "it separates us from them" is completely undone, and he becomes no more virtuous than Tim Burton's Batman. Doesn't this mean that Joker is wrong - this Batman isn't completely "incorruptible" after all?

And let's not forget in TDK , Maroni and Joker taunt Batman about his no-killing rule. Once again, that to me says that no matter what Joker does, Batman won't cross that line...except he will for everyone else when the going gets tough? And if he hates guns so much, then why the hell does he have them mounted on all of his vehicles?

* Then again, the League of Shadows never bothered to reveal to Gotham who Batman actually is in TDKR either .

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
Here you're highlighting one contentious issue in Batman Begins and using it as an excuse to condemn The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. I prefer to evaluate each film independently as self-contained works. 

I can't do that I'm afraid, especially in TDKR where things come in full circle and Talia confronts Batman for killing her father. And in case you've forgotten, I've already discussed my other reasons why I don't like TDK. Batman's contradictory behavior throughout the series is just one of many reasons.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
I'm not going to condemn Batman Forever as "stupid" because it shows Bruce telling Dick it's wrong to take revenge by killing, even though he did it himself in Batman 89. That doesn't mean both films are flawed, it just means an intertexual disparity exists between them; and that perhaps Batman 89 is at fault for showing Batman deliberately taking human life (debatable).

To be fair, that's actually one of the many reasons I don't like Batman Forever that much, and it feels even less like a sequel to B89 than BR did.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
And once again, you could apply this exact same criticism to Burton's Batman. He won't kill Shreck – a powerful racketeer who controls the media, has tremendous political power, is complicit in all of the Penguin's evil machinations, who tried to kill Selina, who murdered Fred Atkins and who knows how many other people, yet is apparently immune to the law (remember Catwoman's line: "Aren't you tired of this sanctimonious robber baron always coming out on top when he should be six feet under?"). Batman won't kill that guy. But he will happily murder a mindless goon who, as far we know, never did anything more severe than hit a Salvation Army Santa with a toy sleigh.

That moment with Catwoman is one of the most intriguing and puzzling scenes I've seen in any movie. The only logical explanation that I can think of for Batman's out-of-character behavior in that scene is he felt a strong spiritual connection with Selina (arguably even more so than Vicki since Bruce and Selina were both damaged psyches) and wanted to salvage a possible chance of happiness with her. He was even willing to throw his Batman identity away by expose himself to Selina in front of Shreck. I guess for the first time, we actually see Batman at his most vulnerable moment emotionally, where his judgment is very clouded. Selina though, had obviously came to her senses later in the film and had to reject Bruce because she can't forgive herself for the atrocities she had done. The opportunity was gone, and Bruce remained being Batman, and once again, alone.

That being said, if I was Burton I would've removed that "Wrong at both counts" line out of the film. But hey, at least Shreck didn't escape and do more harm to anyone else in Gotham or anything.

***EDIT:*** I do hope you understand by now that I've already acknowledged more than several times there is a contradiction in Burton's Batman in the last few moments of BR. I just happen to think it's less egregious than Nolan's. You can disagree if you want, but at least I thought I made myself clear by now.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
Likewise the flaw you're outlining relates to Batman Begins. And the very thing you're accusing Nolan of getting wrong in Batman Begins (and I agree with you on that score) is something he got right in the next two films. But you're calling him out for that too. He can't win. It seems that by making one mistake in Batman Begins, he's ruined all the sequels in your eyes.

I beginning to think you believe I hate Nolan's films only because Batman is a hypocrite. I've already explained my other reasons why I don't like these movies i.e. they're boring, pretentious, intellectually shallow, full of mediocre action, Batman taking the blame doesn't many any sense and so on, and Batman the main character is one reason out of many. It's bad enough that Bale plays him so poorly, when we know he is a much better actor than this, but he is also a poorly written character too. As far as claiming that Nolan ruined the sequels in a way for me, to a certain extent - it's a little bit true because Nolan conveniently doesn't have Batman even recognize his own mistakes, even moreso than Burton's Batman. If Nolan actually bothered to have Batman acknowledge the error of his ways and made his actions make more consistent, then I wouldn't be complaining right now. As it is, it's Nolan's fault as a writer for this, as well as how boring and poorly written the rest of his movies are in my opinion.

In general, despite all the hype and praise they receive, I don't find Nolan's films entertaining (with the possible exception of the third film, albeit for the wrong reasons), nor do I certainly find them smarter, than Burton's Batman or other superhero movies. If you disagree with me, fine, you're entitled to your opinion. 

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
I hope you don't mind me asking, but if you hate the film so intensely, why have you watched it four times in the last two years? I like the film and I've only watched it twice during that equivalent time span.

The reason is because this movie receives so much ridiculous praise that it had eventually lead me to go back and watch it again to see if I was watching it incorrectly, and try to make sense of things. I didn't like it at all the second time I watched it, and the third and fourth times lead me to skipping parts of the film and by the fourth time I tried watching a few portion of scenes here and there until I turned it off saying "Never again". The only positive things I could find in this film were the bank heist and car chase action sequences, and the extremely brief car park and nightclub fight scenes. I didn't like any of the characters, and I thought so-called "complex" themes to be shallow and unrealistic. And you know how critical I was about the ending.

If you think I gave it too much of a chance despite hating it, think again - I've read that some people went to see it more than three times when it first came out, but still didn't like the film that much. Now that's insane.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
Since the showrunners have often cited Nolan's trilogy as a major influence, the whole series comes off as a teen-oriented Dark Knight-lite. I know the actors aren't really teens, but they radiate an air of immaturity about them. In fairness, that's probably more to do with the way the scripts are written. By contrast, Nolan's films had Oscar-calibre actors playing fully rounded characters struggling with complex moral dilemmas, and each following their own personal arc within the wider overarching narrative.

You know much I don't rate the supposed moral themes in Nolan's films so I'm not going there again. The thing with the A-List actors is that they're playing secondary characters, and have even less things to do with each movie. I mean Morgan Freeman as Lucius doesn't do much, he's there for exposition and deliver equipment like he's Q but otherwise his character never develops throughout the trilogy, Michael Caine's Alfred has less and less to do in each movie. Oldman's Gordon, who I thought was the best character by far in the first movie, becomes progressively dumber in each film that has nothing to with moral dilemmas, and I don't think his acting in his sequels are as good as the first.

For all the praise Nolan gets for "deep character development", none of his characters are as well written than Oliver Queen in Arrow. The actor who plays him kinda sucks but hear me out. In that show, which ironically takes influence from Nolan's films in terms of tone, we see Queen's journey from spoiled-rotten rich douchebag into a traumatised castaway who learns to kill as a means of survival. Five years later, he returns home to right the wrongs of his father and his fellow elite, only to slowly reinvent himself as an altruistic hero as he tries to avoid being the ruthless vigilante he once was. He does make mistakes here and there, and can be taking his friends for granted at times. He even has a few double standards here and there, but what makes the character rewarding is he is changing over time and actually learns from the error of his ways. I honestly don't see any of this character development in Nolan's Batman. And to be fair, the same thing goes for Burton's Batman too (in terms of the main character at least).

Of course, what are the odds that by the time I write this the showrunners will probably come up something lame and contrived that ruins the character?  ::)

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
I'm probably being too harsh on Arrow. I haven't seen much of the second season, which I gather is an improvement over the first.

The first half of the second season was very good I thought, even better than the debut season at times. But the second half...not so much. I wasn't a fan of Deathstroke's plotline, and there were a few contrivances that I didn't care for.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42You mean like the entire police force going underground and stay trapped there for six months?

The entire police force overreacting to a crisis is still more realistic than no police force reacting to a crisis. For example, the parade at the end of Batman 89, or the riot scene in the middle of Batman Returns, or the penguin commandoes in Batman Returns. In fact the only time the GCPD earn their pay in Burton's films is when they're chasing Batman. But I agree it was a dumb move sending that many men underground.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42Other superhero films are set in real cities too, but to me, their police and governments aren't any less believable than in Nolan's films.

It's not a matter of being more realistic than every other superhero film; just being more realistic than the previous Batman films. And the previous Batman films had never shown the police and civil authorities reacting to the supervillains in a believable way. Only Batman 89 made any effort to do this, but even then Dent, Gordon and the mayor were sidelined during the film's crucial final act.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42After all, this is a Batman who could disappear in a blink of an eye.

When he was on top form and had the element of surprise. In this scene he was injured and lying on the ground right in front of Dent. He was never in control of the situation.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42This is a Batman who could survive deadly incidents such as jumping off a skyscraper building or a multi-storey car park platform and land on top of vehicles (but at the same time we're lead to believe he gets his leg crippled from a much smaller height when Dent died?).

The difference is that he deployed his cape to slow his rate of descent on those other occasions. He didn't when he fell after saving Gordon's son. The other two occasions were controlled descents. The fall at the end of TDK wasn't.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42This is a Batman who could repair his broken back by getting his vertebra punched back together

That was unrealistic. Although it's worth remembering that the comic it was based on was very unrealistic too. In the movie he had a herniated disc, while in the comic his injuries were closer to those suffered by Christopher Reeve. Yet he recovered from them in less than two years. Of course that doesn't excuse the same improbability existing in the movie.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42and miraculously recovers from a serious stab wound so quickly.

We're never told how serious the stab wound was. And we're not told how quickly Bruce recovered from it. Once he gets stabbed, he doesn't do any more fighting for the remainder of the film. He just sits in the Bat. It's hard to judge the extent of this particular injury based on what's shown on screen.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42Slightly off-topic but do now you see what I mean when I find Nolan's films inconsistent in regards to his attempt to make his movies "more realistic"?

Not really, because all those things you listed support my assertion that these are in fact fantasy films. If Nolan had established in Batman Begins that Batman couldn't survive physical injuries of that sort, or falling off high places with his cape glider, then that would be inconsistent. But he demonstrated that these things were acceptable in his universe right back in Batman Begins. In the very first film he showed Batman and one of the League of Shadows ninjas tumbling off a monorail platform and falling to street level, and then Batman getting right back up again without any injury. He showed Batman enduring a full body burn and leaping out of high window under the influence of Scarecrow's fear gas, falling to street level and bouncing off a car, only to suffer minimal injuries in the process. These sort of things happen in the comics all the time, and they've always happened in Nolan's film too. He never said they couldn't. So there's no inconsistency.

The very premise of Batman is inherently unrealistic to begin with: a man who dresses as a bat and leaps across rooftops, singlehandedly taking down heavily armed SWAT teams while barely getting a scratch on him. That fantastical premise is preserved in Nolan's films, just as it was in Burton's. The difference is that Nolan tried to offer a rational explanation to make the more outlandish aspects of the mythos seem more plausible (something the comic writers have been doing since the seventies), and adopted a less fanciful visual vocabulary to make the setting and characters seem more immediate and relatable. But besides trying to get inside Batman's head and explain the logic behind his actions, his take on the character was really not that different from Burton's.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42What period of time did TDK take place after BB? A year or less? Because he couldn't have deteriorated that quickly, no matter how many scars he had on his body.

I think TDK takes place around 9 months after BB, but I'm open to correction on that. Remember the scene in TDKR where Bruce goes to the doctors and gets a rundown of all his injuries? That's the condition Bruce was in during the final scene in TDK. The only difference was he hadn't injured his leg yet when he confronted Two-Face. You see him clutching his stomach in pain when he leaves the Joker at the construction site, indicating the injuries he sustained during that battle were more severe than they might have initially appeared. He then gets shot in the stomach at point-blank range and we see him collapse on the floor. The original script describes him clutching his gut in agony. Bruce was exhausted, physically and emotionally, and in pain. Insisting he could have easily taken down Two-Face after being shot is like those people who insist Keaton's Batman should have kayoed the final Joker goon in the cathedral with one punch. Both scenes take place when the hero is injured and at a low ebb. And for many fans its moments like that, when Batman's human vulnerability overshadows his costumed bravado, that his heroism becomes most apparent.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42But the scene didn't execute the tragedy of the situation well at all. It would've been far better to me that Batman did lunge at Dent but tried to wrestle with him to grab the gun away, and then Dent accidentally tripped and fell to his death despite Batman's valiant attempts to save him.

But that's basically what did happen. It just happened very quickly. The dramatic emphasis on that specific instant in the scene – the moment where all three of them go over the edge and Gordon rushes over to see what's happened – was to make the audience uncertain who fell and who survived. Two-Face was standing right on the edge, so the tiniest movement from Batman would have been enough to knock him over. And since he had a firm grip on Gordon's son, he would have taken the kid with him.

It could have worked the way you suggest it, but I think it worked very well just the way Nolan did it. The whole scene was basically adapted from the ending of Batman: Year One, except in the comic it was Gordon who lunged at Johnny Vitti and the two of them, along with James Gordon Jr., tumbled over the edge together. As a long-time comic fan, I appreciated the nod to the source material.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42We have no idea how Bruce felt after he killed his mentor for the remainder of the first film, and Ra's isn't even mentioned at all in TDK

It would have been better to have had a scene addressing that. I agree with you there. Maybe just a short conversation between Bruce and Alfred. Or even just a shot of Batman observing the train crash from a rooftop, and then his triumphant smile faltering and changing to a look of remorse. Something along those lines would have been better than nothing.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42Are you seeing where I'm going with this? You can disagree with me with Dent's death all you want, but surely you got to admit that none of the films show how Ra's's death affected Batman, or Batman having any conflicted thoughts about what he'd done, especially when he was dealing with an even more destructive mass-murderer in the second film.

I see what you're saying about Bruce's lack of reaction to Ra's' death. And I think you're right. That should have been addressed. But I still maintain that that's an issue stemming from the original fault in Batman Begins.

Elsewhere in this thread I've said I think they should address Superman's guilt over killing Zod in BvS. The reason I want them to do that is because I'm a big Superman fan and I really want to like Man of Steel. I think having Superman express long-lasting remorse over what happened would retroactively make his actions during the MoS finale more tolerable. But if they don't do it, it won't make BvS a worse film. It just won't make Man of Steel a better film. By the same logic, I can't penalise The Dark Knight for a mistake in Batman Begins. Having Bruce mention Ra's in TDK might have retroactively benefitted BB, but it wouldn't have made TDK a better film in my eyes. And by the same logic, not having Bruce mention Ra's didn't make TDK a worse film.

TDKR is slightly different, because the matter of Ra's' death was brought up as an important plot point. But I like the way they handled it there. It's almost as though Nolan was admitting that Batman messed up in BB, and now his mistake is coming back to haunt him. We actually get to hear him try and rationalise what he did in front of Talia, and even she thinks it's a feeble excuse. I thought that whole scene was beautifully played out.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42It's only in the third film where Batman finally acknowledged he killed Ra's, and he was righteous about it.  Not once did any of the films show that Batman reflected on Ra's death with any regret or remorse. If you want to argue that he did when Talia revealed herself, I doubt it a lot, he was rather desolate that she had betrayed him and was about to blow up Gotham.

No, I think he believed he'd done the right thing. He never apologised for Ra's, he only tried to justify it in such a way that would exonerate himself. Partly for Talia's benefit, but I think mostly for the benefit of his own conscience. But I don't think the film presents Batman's perspective as completely right on this particular issue. It's another one of those gray areas where I sense Nolan letting the audience make their own judgements.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42* The obvious reason that Ra's had to die is because he knew Batman's true identity and it wouldn't make any sense if he were to return in the sequels and not reveal Batman's real identity to the world (and I thought that was already a stretch when he didn't do that at Bruce's birthday party).

True. I've often wondered what happened to the other League members who were present when Ra's set fire to Wayne Manor. Presumably they were killed during the fear gas riot towards the end of the film. Otherwise they're still out there with Bruce's secret.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42Doesn't this mean that Joker is wrong - this Batman isn't completely "incorruptible" after all?

He corrupted himself on that one occasion when he was new to the game and inexperienced. But from that point on, he never consciously repeated the mistake. And as I say, I don't think Bruce saw what he did as a moral lapse (even though it clearly was). I think he convinced himself that since he didn't actually pull the trigger, and since he technically just let Ra's die, that that was somehow acceptable. I would suggest that killing through inaction might be an acceptable alternative for the Nolan Batman, were it not for the fact he saved the Joker. But again, that's an intertextual disparity. The flaw lies in Batman Begins. Not The Dark Knight.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42And let's not forget in TDK , Maroni and Joker taunt Batman about his no-killing rule. Once again, that to me says that no matter what Joker does, Batman won't cross that line...except he will for everyone else when the going gets tough?

Not for everyone. He did it once, for Ra's.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42And if he hates guns so much, then why the hell does he have them mounted on all of his vehicles?

For shooting out tires, destroying obstacles, firing warning shots. Batman's had guns on his vehicles in the comics for decades, yet he hates guns and has sworn never to use them. At least Nolan's Batman never made a specific vow against using firearms like his comic book counterpart.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42To be fair, that's actually one of the many reasons I don't like Batman Forever that much, and it feels even less like a sequel to B89 than BR did.

Really? I think Batman Forever feels a lot more like a sequel to B89 than BR. Mainly because it continues to explore Bruce's personal journey and his feelings of guilt over his parents' deaths. It touches on a lot of the same plot points and themes as the first film – a hero's origin, Dent/Two-Face's tragic fall, revenge, duality, Bruce being tempted by a normal life with someone he loves, the autumnal October setting, etc. Some of this stuff is touched upon in Batman Returns, but that really feels more like a side story about the villains than a Batman story. Remove the reference to Catwoman and BF could almost be Batman II. I should probably clarify that the last few times I've watched BF I've watched fan edits with the extra scenes restored. I almost prefer those cuts of BF over the theatrical cut of Batman Returns, but I think ultimately I like BR and BF about equally these days. I don't think either of them is as good as B89.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42That moment with Catwoman is one of the most intriguing and puzzling scenes I've seen in any movie.

I wish Burton had put as much thought into the scene as you have, but I seriously doubt he did. He said everything he wanted to say about Batman in the first film. In BR he was more interested in the villains. Daniel Waters even said once that he wished they could have left Batman out of the film all together. And I expect Burton had similar feelings on the matter.

It's worth noting that several of the problematic elements in both B89 and BR arose as a result of Burton's penchant for rewrites. He has a habit of bringing in other writers to rework the original scripts in such a way that contradict the previous writer's ideas. For example, the scene where Batman immolates the fire breather was not in Waters' original script. To my knowledge, it's just something Burton made up at a later date. Even Michael Keaton didn't find out about it until he saw the finished film. I can't remember where I saw this, but I once read an interview with Keaton where he expressed his disapproval at that particular scene and said he wouldn't allow his son to watch it, even though he'd let him watch the previous film. I don't like citing articles I can't directly quote, but I'm afraid I can't recall where I saw this interview now, so I'll have to ask you to take my word for it. Point is, you know you've got a problem when even the actor playing Batman disapproves of the character's moral conduct. But then the problem wouldn't have arisen in the first place had Burton not been so clumsy with the rewrites. The same is true of many of the other inconsistencies and plot holes in both B89 and BR. At least the questionable elements in Nolan's films were calculated. The problems in Burton's film were mostly the result of clumsiness.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42I guess for the first time, we actually see Batman at his most vulnerable moment emotionally, where his judgment is very clouded.

And it's when he's vulnerable that he makes clumsy/illogical mistakes: like revealing his secret identity to a villain, allowing Selina to slash him across the face, allowing Shreck to shoot him, and failing to stop Selina from killing both herself and Shreck. All those mistakes within a single scene. But does his incompetence make his anguish any less heartrending?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42Selina though, had obviously came to her senses later in the film and had to reject Bruce because she can't forgive herself for the atrocities she had done.

But she hadn't actually committed any atrocities yet. She beat up a rapist in an alleyway, blew up a building (but made sure the security guards got away first), and attacked Batman a few times. She was complicit in the kidnapping of the Ice Prince, but didn't know Penguin was going to kill her. Admittedly she did briefly become fixated on killing Batman. I'm still not quite sure why, considering her main goal was revenge against Shreck. Or why she was willing to team up with Cobblepot, Shreck's best friend and business partner, to kill Batman. But she never crossed the killing line until she murdered Shreck. That was the point of no return.

Of course in earlier drafts of the script she had already killed Chip by that point. Which would have added more weight to her feelings of self-loathing and guilt. But thanks to Burton's capricious rewrites, reordering of scenes, and general lack of attention when it comes to consistency, that scene ended up vanishing into the ether. Along with scenes explaining most of the other plot holes in the story.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42***EDIT:*** I do hope you understand by now that I've already acknowledged more than several times there is a contradiction in Burton's Batman in the last few moments of BR. I just happen to think it's less egregious than Nolan's. You can disagree if you want, but at least I thought I made myself clear by now.

I understand you've acknowledged it. But I still don't understand how it's not a double standard. For me, it's not just the line about Batman not being above the law that's the problem in BR. It's also the fact that the Gotham police department is willing to work with Batman, but don't seem to have a problem with him slaughtering people left, right and centre. An earlier draft of the Batman Returns script even had a line where Gordon defends Batman, saying that he's never killed anyone before. Which is patently untrue. And unlike in Nolan's films, the killings in Burton's movies often aren't conducted with the aim of saving someone else's life. They're just killings for the sake of killing. And Batman actually smiles while doing it. In fact Keaton's Batman has the second highest kill count in the Burton-Schumacher series, second only to Nicholson's Joker. Not even Penguin, Two-Face or Mr. Freeze kill as many people as Batman did in the Burton films. And yet Batman takes offence when Vicki tells him people think he's as dangerous as the Joker (they're not far off), and has the nerve to ask Selina "Who the hell do you think you are?" when she announces her intent to kill Shreck at the masquerade ball. He clearly states that he's not above the law during the showdown at the zoo, and yet everything he's done in the preceding two films contradicts that assertion. For me, this is much worse than Nolan's Batman making the conscious decision to kill – once – in Batman Begins.

I just don't understand how it's fair to highlight Batman's refusal to kill in The Dark Knight as a flaw because he deliberately killed once in Batman Begins. If Nolan's films must all be judged together then so should Burton's. In which case every instance where Batman kills the 1989 film is a flaw, because it's inconsistent with two scenes in Batman Returns where he clearly states it's wrong for vigilantes to kill. Or do we isolate that flaw in Batman Returns to let Batman 89 off the hook? And if we do that, why don't we do the same for Nolan? Treat each of his films as self-contained works instead of lumping them together into a single omnibus so we use the flaws in one chapter as an excuse to trash the entire book. Otherwise we're applying harsher criticism to Nolan than we are to Burton.

For the record, I really do love Batman Returns. I know I'm being harsh on it in this post, but I'm doing so in an attempt to make a point. You can nitpick at anything. I could list literally dozens of plot holes and inconsistencies in that movie, and use them to accuse Burton and Waters of being stupid, lazy, inconsistent, or any other number of pejorative terms I'd care to throw at them. But I accept their interpretation of Batman for what it is. Just like when I read The Dark Knight Returns I'll accept that Miller's Batman will preach to the Sons of Batman about the cowardice of guns, but then use guns built into the Batmobile, throw gang members into electrified neon signs, and snap the Joker's neck. Denny O'Neil's Batman frequently rallied against killing and the use of guns during the Bronze Age, and yet I can name at least four of five stories written by O'Neil in which Batman kills; sometimes accidentally while trying to save lives, like Nolan's Batman, and other times deliberately. That doesn't mean O'Neil is a terrible, stupid, inconsistent hack. Not unless you want him to be, or you want Miller to be, or Burton, in which case you can cite any of these things I've mentioned as justification for that viewpoint. But if you apply such harsh criticism to them, you've got to apply it to everyone. Otherwise it's a double standard.

For every fault I could identify in Batman Returns, or The Dark Knight Returns, or Denny O'Neil's run in the seventies, I could list ten good things. And I could do the same for Nolan's films. I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge them, since you're locked into a mindset that says his films are worthless and have no redeeming qualities at all. But if you evaluated every version of Batman with that same mindset, you could easily condemn the entire franchise, regardless of who the director or writer was.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42I beginning to think you believe I hate Nolan's films only because Batman is a hypocrite. I've already explained my other reasons why I don't like these movies i.e. they're boring, pretentious, intellectually shallow, full of mediocre action, Batman taking the blame doesn't many any sense and so on, and Batman the main character is one reason out of many

You've given reasons for why you think Nolan's Batman is a hypocrite, which is why I've focussed on addressing that point. We can both cite examples from the film to support conflicting viewpoints on that score. When it comes to accusations of the films being boring, pretentious and intellectually shallow, those are all subjective responses that are harder to substantiate/refute.

When someone labels a movie 'boring', that's as likely to reveal something about the attitude of the viewer as it is the film itself. You could call anything boring. The only way to gauge the degree of boredom something elicits is to look at how people respond to it. And the vast majority of people thought Nolan's films weren't boring. If 96% of people were excited by it, and 4% of people weren't, then he clearly got it right. What that 4% find exciting might be what the other 96% would find boring. I'm fairly sure the placement of action scenes in Nolan's films, relative to runtime, is more or less the same as in the Burton-Schumacher films. And the scenes connecting the action sequences contain conflict, mystery, romance, and all the other dramatic devices that conventionally arouse viewer interest. All the pieces are there for an interesting film. It's just bad luck if you happen to be one of the few people who finds it dull.

The charge of pretentiousness I can agree with to an extent, in so far as Nolan has a tendency to turn his Batman characters into symbols in an attempt to add thematic weight to everything they do. But ultimately it's not that big a deal. It only amounts to a few extra seconds of dialogue. Again though, I think this is one of those criticisms that could relate more to the fans than the film itself. The fans who claim Nolan's films are intellectual masterworks, and that anyone who dislikes them only does so because they're intellectually incapable of understanding them, are the ones attaching disproportionate value to the films. The films themselves aren't really pretending to be about big ideas, because the ideas are there: Joker symbolises chaos, Batman symbolises order, Two-Face symbolises the random interplay between the two, and so forth. Maybe those ideas shouldn't be there, and maybe the plots should function on a more basic level. But the fact remains Nolan did map out a thematic framework on top of the main narrative. I'd argue Burton did too with his films. But while Burton conveyed his ideas through heavy-handed visuals, Nolan did it through heavy-handed dialogue (I'm a fan of showing rather than telling, so I generally prefer Burton's approach). You could argue that the extra thematic layer is unnecessary, and that the characters should be able to function on their own without being turned into symbols, and in that regard I'd say you have a point. But you can still enjoy the film on the more straightforward level. The extra thematic layer is just there for people who like to look for those sort of things.

As for the films being intellectually shallow, is that really a problem? Do any of the old films have intellectual depth to them? This is another one of those criticisms which seems to relate to the fan base more than the films. The fans claim it's intellectually deep, but it isn't. Ok, then the fans are at fault.  That doesn't make the film itself bad.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42nor do I certainly find them smarter, than Burton's Batman or other superhero movies.

Do they need to be?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42I mean Morgan Freeman as Lucius doesn't do much, he's there for exposition and deliver equipment like he's Q but otherwise his character never develops throughout the trilogy,

I agree with this. I didn't particularly like the way Lucius was portrayed in this trilogy.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42Michael Caine's Alfred has less and less to do in each movie.

Yet he still had a bigger role than Alfred did in the old films, with the possible exception of Batman and Robin.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42Oldman's Gordon, who I thought was the best character by far in the first movie, becomes progressively dumber in each film that has nothing to with moral dilemmas, and I don't think his acting in his sequels are as good as the first.

I loved Oldman's performance in these films. For me, he was pretty much the definitive live action Gordon. But I thought his best acting was definitively in the second film. Particularly the final scene with Two-Face. I liked the way his character faced just as many moral dilemmas as Batman did: struggling to stay clean in a corrupt police department and refusing to accept dirty money, despite pressure from Flass and the other cops; choosing to work outside the law with Batman and Dent, and suffering the consequences this had on his marriage and family life; battling his inner conscience when covering for Dent, and helping maintain the conspiracy of lies to uphold the Dent Act. All intriguing little subplots that Nolan managed to weave into the main narrative to make sure Gordon always had a personal stake in what was happening. It was a massive improvement over the way Gordon was depicted in the old series of films. I'm curious to know why you think his character got dumber with each film?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42For all the praise Nolan gets for "deep character development", none of his characters are as well written than Oliver Queen in Arrow. The actor who plays him kinda sucks but hear me out. In that show, which ironically takes influence from Nolan's films in terms of tone, we see Queen's journey from spoiled-rotten rich douchebag into a traumatised castaway who learns to kill as a means of survival. Five years later, he returns home to right the wrongs of his father and his fellow elite, only to slowly reinvent himself as an altruistic hero as he tries to avoid being the ruthless vigilante he once was. He does make mistakes here and there, and can be taking his friends for granted at times. He even has a few double standards here and there, but what makes the character rewarding is he is changing over time and actually learns from the error of his ways.

I haven't seen enough of Arrow to comment on this, but I'm sure you're right. I really should try and catch up on it sometime. But with so many new superhero shows starting soon, it's going to be difficult to keep up.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42I honestly don't see any of this character development in Nolan's Batman. And to be fair, the same thing goes for Burton's Batman too (in terms of the main character at least).

Well I've always maintained that, budget issues aside, television is theoretically a better medium for comic book adaptations than film. The 90s in particular was a great decade for superheroes and comic book TV shows. We had live action shows based on Superman, The Flash, Tales from the Crypt and RoboCop, plus animated shows based on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Batman, Superman, Iron Man, Spider-Man, X-Men and The Fantastic Four. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Arrow, The Flash, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Daredevil will mark the beginning of a new golden age for superheroes on TV.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 23 Aug  2014, 04:42The first half of the second season was very good I thought, even better than the debut season at times. But the second half...not so much. I wasn't a fan of Deathstroke's plotline, and there were a few contrivances that I didn't care for.

I saw the first five or six episodes of season 1, then fell behind. If I was to catch up, would you recommend watching the whole series from scratch, or would it be better to start straight from season 2? Or even season 3?

RE: Nolan's attempts to make it more "realistic". It's quite simple really: either there are people who were immersed by it and thought it was well done, or there are people who didn't buy any of it and thought it was poorly executed. I didn't ask Nolan to give me a Joker that has facial scars and wears make up, but I don't think its fair to ask people not to be bothered by any of the inconsistent unrealistic things because it's a "comic book fantasy". It's just a convenient excuse and a double standard as far as I'm concerned. After all, trying to put Batman in a more realistic context is troublesome because, let's face it, he'd get no support from the police at all and the Batsignal wouldn't exist. He would've remained a fugitive forever. The only Batman story that does better at being more realistic is probably Miller's Year One.

Come to think of it, you can argue that there are other superhero films that have tried to make things "more" realistic, but they do a better job at it, and don't go far by breaking suspension of disbelief like Nolan's films do. The Iron Man films are set in a real-looking world, but Tony Stark is still the genius inventor who build his incredible armored suits. The essence of that character exists, unlike Nolan's Bruce Wayne whose expertise is scaled down completely and, if anything, Lucius Fox is the World's Greatest Detective. Even Arrow, no matter how much Oliver Queen tries to rescue his city, the police have a zero tolerance for him because he's a vigilante, especially one who kills. The only time they sanction his actions is when Starling City is under attack by Deathstroke's army by the end of the second season.

QuoteFor every fault I could identify in Batman Returns, or The Dark Knight Returns, or Denny O'Neil's run in the seventies, I could list ten good things. And I could do the same for Nolan's films. I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge them, since you're locked into a mindset that says his films are worthless and have no redeeming qualities at all. But if you evaluated every version of Batman with that same mindset, you could easily condemn the entire franchise, regardless of who the director or writer was.

As a matter of fact, I never liked the bit where Miller's Batman bans guns in the second half of TDKR. I remember reading that for the first time six years ago, and I honestly thought the story was getting worse by that stage. When it was adapted into an animated movie, I knew what to expect so I just went along with it, but I always argued that the first half of TDKR, both in comic and in animated form, to be much better in my opinion. And I haven't even read those O'Neill stories where Batman does kill despite he's supposed to have a moral code. That's actually really disappointing to hear, I'm curious to go find and read them.  :(

QuoteI just don't understand how it's fair to highlight Batman's refusal to kill in The Dark Knight as a flaw because he deliberately killed once in Batman Begins.

Because Batman NEVER acknowledges that killing Ra's was a mistake in the first place. And here is why I'm very harsh with Nolan's films: for a trilogy that's supposed to tell Bruce Wayne's journey as Batman from beginning to end, we have no real idea what Bruce's morals actually are. Nolan had a perfect opportunity to improve all the flaws from Burton's take by showing us a Batman who grows throughout the series, where he learns from his mistakes and becomes a better character for it. But he didn't.

It's just like Burton's Batman never the saw the double standards of his ways, but the difference is Burton's flaws are only on display in the last few minutes of Batman Returns. Throughout Nolan's trilogy though, he argues that killing is wrong, but doesn't seem too bothered about the deaths he caused in the next scene, regardless if it was indirect or not. Then Ra's's death is swept under the carpet completely until TDKR. Otherwise this was never addressed as a mistake at all, and doesn't even affect Batman's (lack of) character development at all. For all the praise that Nolan gets, his Batman is hardly any more coherent than Burton's. This is the thing that really annoys me about the exaggerated praise for Nolan's films for being "complex" and "cerebral"; the characters keep doing things that don't match their beliefs. There's no reason why this Batman would prevent Joker from dying at all. In case you missed it, that becomes especially troublesome when Maroni and Joker taunt him for having "rules" - when we know that's not necessarily true, the first film shows he will kill the most wicked, even when lives are at stake. In fact, I'd say he had every excuse to kill the Joker because he was about to blow up the two boats, and was capable of anything after escaping from jail. If the film actually bothered to have Batman realise Ra's's death was a mistake, then it at least would actually make sense why he spared Joker. Otherwise, why did Ra's al Ghul deserved to die more than the Joker? For a trilogy that's supposed to show Batman's beginning, middle and end, that's not good enough. That's why I'm very harsh on these films. If the films take themselves so seriously and pretend to sound clever than they actually are, its only setting up big expectations that I expect it to live up to. Otherwise once again, what makes Nolan's films so good if they're just as flawed as every other Batman story ever told, even more so? And why do people think Nolan is such an amazing director then, if his movies are even more flawed than other superhero films?

And do you know why I can't see TDK as a self-contained movie? Because the final nail of the coffin for me is when Batman ends up taking the blame for Dent's crimes, which never mind how utterly ridiculous it is, the film ends on an unfinished note like The Empire Strikes Back; paving the way for events about to unfold in the third film. And Batman taking the blame was always going to result in a disastrous outcome since the truth was always going to come out. And then of course the third film has Batman acknowledging killing off Ra's, which makes his sparing of the Joker even more confusing. So we are forced to look at the sequels as part of a trilogy whether we like it or not. From beginning, middle, to end, Bruce Wayne's journey has left me even more confused than the final moments of Batman Returns. And that frustration only grows when people become so over-exaggerated, and even rabid, in their praise for these movies where unlike you at least, they can't even see the obvious faults. But even if that crazy fanbase didn't exist, my personal feelings about these films would remain the same, in terms how overlong, unnecessarily convoluted and dull I find them to be, and full of pretentious themes that really have no business being in a Batman film (e.g. Patriot Act/sonar technology, come on, Batman was shown to be doing far worse things than that beforehand).

RE: the faults in Burton's films, I'd say that Returns is easily the most flawed between the two by far, and the examples you're stating only reinforces how inferior it is to B89 in my opinion. In B89, we have no idea if Batman killed anyone before he blew up Axis Chemicals. There's that rumour with Johnny Gobbs, but for all we know that might have been an accident. Otherwise, we don't even know where his morals lie in that film yet. To me, B89 and even Batman & Robin, were the only Batman films I found to be the most consistent in terms of what the character does. In my opinion anyway.

RE: Catwoman feeling guilty - she felt that being an accessory to the Ice Princess's death was atrocious enough as it is, and she couldn't cope with herself after that, no matter is she didn't know that was Penguin's plan. RE: Bruce's line the ballroom scene, that didn't really bother me as much as it did for you because he was keeping up a facade at that point. When he was pleading to Catwoman to not kill Shreck though...I can't argue with that. And I never did in the first place.

QuoteFor shooting out tires, destroying obstacles, firing warning shots. Batman's had guns on his vehicles in the comics for decades, yet he hates guns and has sworn never to use them. At least Nolan's Batman never made a specific vow against using firearms like his comic book counterpart.

Some of those comics are at fault too then, i.e. Dark Knight Returns. But Nolan's Batman telling off Catwoman does imply he doesn't approve using them. Okay then, take them off of your vehicles. Just because it happened in the comics doesn't mean I want to see it the film, and it doesn't let Nolan off the hook either. Catwoman kills Bane and quips "About that no-gun policy? I'm not sure it's a good idea". That tells me that guns are the solution after all.  ::) And hey, at least Burton's Batman never claimed to not ever use guns in the first place.

QuoteWe're never told how serious the stab wound was. And we're not told how quickly Bruce recovered from it. Once he gets stabbed, he doesn't do any more fighting for the remainder of the film. He just sits in the Bat. It's hard to judge the extent of this particular injury based on what's shown on screen.

The stab wound looked very serious from what I saw, deeply right in the gut. And Batman's reaction looked gravely ill. But later on, he was able to move and walk around without showing any signs of discomfort when he connected to the bomb to the Bat.

QuoteWhen someone labels a movie 'boring', that's as likely to reveal something about the attitude of the viewer as it is the film itself. You could call anything boring. The only way to gauge the degree of boredom something elicits is to look at how people respond to it. And the vast majority of people thought Nolan's films weren't boring. If 96% of people were excited by it, and 4% of people weren't, then he clearly got it right. What that 4% find exciting might be what the other 96% would find boring. I'm fairly sure the placement of action scenes in Nolan's films, relative to runtime, is more or less the same as in the Burton-Schumacher films. And the scenes connecting the action sequences contain conflict, mystery, romance, and all the other dramatic devices that conventionally arouse viewer interest. All the pieces are there for an interesting film. It's just bad luck if you happen to be one of the few people who finds it dull.

But you should know that popularity doesn't necessarily guarantee it's actually any good, or better than other things, regardless if most people like it. I'm sure there are many films out there that you disliked a lot, despite how popular or critically acclaimed they are. When I like or dislike a film, I never justify on the basis that majority of people enjoyed it, or hated it, as evidence that it's good or bad. I mean, my favourite Marvel film is Captain America: The First Avenger, but people tend to say The Avengers or Iron Man is the best. I've met a few people who thought Avengers was nothing special, but I'd never dare argue that their opinion is wrong because how popular it is, even if I like it.

Popularity might mean most people enjoyed something, but it doesn't necessarily prove its quality.

QuoteAs for the films being intellectually shallow, is that really a problem? Do any of the old films have intellectual depth to them? This is another one of those criticisms which seems to relate to the fan base more than the films. The fans claim it's intellectually deep, but it isn't. Ok, then the fans are at fault.  That doesn't make the film itself bad.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 22:42
nor do I certainly find them smarter, than Burton's Batman or other superhero movies.

Do they need to be?

I didn't mean to say it like a snob, I only called Nolan's films intellectually shallow only because they tend to be plodding and full of unnecessary expository, pretentious dialogue than they need to have. Even if the rabid fanbase didn't exist, I'd still the find the films pretentious.

QuoteThe films themselves aren't really pretending to be about big ideas, because the ideas are there: Joker symbolises chaos, Batman symbolises order, Two-Face symbolises the random interplay between the two, and so forth.

Unfortunately that's not even true (at least not in the first two films), he drives around in deadly vehicles that destroy public property and endangers innocent bystanders.

QuoteYet he still had a bigger role than Alfred did in the old films, with the possible exception of Batman and Robin.

And unfortunately I found him to be out of character too, mostly in the third one. His decision to keep Rachel's letter a secret did more damage to Bruce if anything, because he was lead to believe that Rachel would return to him if she hadn't died. This only made Bruce become more reclusive as time went by, and Alfred conveniently tells the truth when Gotham is on the verge of another disaster. I didn't buy it.

QuoteI agree with this. I didn't particularly like the way Lucius was portrayed in this trilogy.

Not a fan of the Q role he played either I presume? I wouldn't have mind it so much if he played more of a mentor role and taught Bruce all the skills he needed to become a detective, becoming his own man in a way. But it didn't happen. As it is, it's a role that could've been played by any actor. There was nothing he did in these movies that lead me to believe that only Morgan Freeman could play this role.

QuoteI loved Oldman's performance in these films. For me, he was pretty much the definitive live action Gordon. But I thought his best acting was definitively in the second film. Particularly the final scene with Two-Face. I liked the way his character faced just as many moral dilemmas as Batman did: struggling to stay clean in a corrupt police department and refusing to accept dirty money, despite pressure from Flass and the other cops; choosing to work outside the law with Batman and Dent, and suffering the consequences this had on his marriage and family life; battling his inner conscience when covering for Dent, and helping maintain the conspiracy of lies to uphold the Dent Act. All intriguing little subplots that Nolan managed to weave into the main narrative to make sure Gordon always had a personal stake in what was happening. It was a massive improvement over the way Gordon was depicted in the old series of films. I'm curious to know why you think his character got dumber with each film?

I say his acting in the second film especially paled in comparison to the first one, because I couldn't get over how he couldn't hide his British accent in certain scenes; particularly the one where he's arguing with Dent on the rooftop when they meet Batman. I couldn't even understand what he was saying in some scenes, but then again that might have to do with the awful sound mixing the film had.

I thought faking his death was really unnecessary and I didn't buy his reasoning he did it to protect his family when I didn't remember they were in any danger to begin with. If anything, wouldn't a stunt like that, especially since it rewarded him a promotion in a high ranking position like the Police Commissioner, bring his family unwanted attention to dangerous criminals? The Commissioner job would only increase his public profile after all. And of course let's not forget in the third one, he backs away at the last second from revealing the truth about Harvey in the gala scene because he's scared it could tear the city apart. Well, it only goes to show that he and Batman should've put the blame on people who could never be caught and who Gotham knew to be dangerous in the first place - it wasn't really that complicated. Finally, he ordered the entire police force to go underground, did he not?

Anyway, I think it's time we let this discussion die. I hope I didn't come across as antagonistic and I respect that you're a fan of the Nolan films, but for me, they just weren't good enough. If you find them entertaining, more power to you. But for me, I found them to be poorly written and boring films that have so many problems that surprisingly too many fans fail to acknowledge. It's refreshing to hear a fan of these films that does recognize that this Batman kills, unlike the shocking number of people I've witnessed on the 'net. But I still wouldn't have liked these films (TDK especially) even if this rabid fanbase never existed. I don't say this to sound cool or to speak on behalf of anyone else here who don't like these movies, and I'm especially not a Burton Batman fanboy either. I say how I feel, and I didn't enjoy watching these movies (except maybe the unintentionally funny third one). It simply wasn't a good experience. For me, watching a Batman film where the hero's morals are completely unclear and then suddenly takes the the blame for crimes he didn't commit (never mind that it could never have worked since everyone recognizes his efforts as a crime fighter for the past year, and the presumably still alive Joker would never go along with it either) is not my idea of a good movie. It's simply one of those things that we'll never see eye to eye here.

QuoteI saw the first five or six episodes of season 1, then fell behind. If I was to catch up, would you recommend watching the whole series from scratch, or would it be better to start straight from season 2? Or even season 3?

To understand what is going on in depth, you're better off watching it from the beginning. You'll get a little lost of what happens in the second season otherwise.

Oh wow, I didn't expect to come back to pages of discussion. I don't even know where to start, or if I even want to now. Heh...

You know, I couldn't help myself but I found this extract in The Dark Knight Trilogy: The Screenplays on Google.

QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei)

And then of course they try to justify that Ras's death was a "technicality" and so on, and Nolan didn't even know Batman has a moral code until Goyer told him about it.

Is it just me or does it sound like these men really don't know what they're doing?

Heh, it's a bit off topic from talking about The Joker, but yes, I find it to be a bit silly on their part. It's one of those things about the Nolan movies that irks me. We're constantly told over and over again about how Batman doesn't kill, but he's done it in ever single one of these movies. And in very obvious ways, too.

I dunno, maybe you should move that into the Batman killing thread?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Fri, 22 Aug  2014, 21:11
Likewise the flaw you're outlining relates to Batman Begins. And the very thing you're accusing Nolan of getting wrong in Batman Begins (and I agree with you on that score) is something he got right in the next two films. But you're calling him out for that too. He can't win. It seems that by making one mistake in Batman Begins, he's ruined all the sequels in your eyes.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 25 Aug  2014, 21:12
For every fault I could identify in Batman Returns, or The Dark Knight Returns, or Denny O'Neil's run in the seventies, I could list ten good things. And I could do the same for Nolan's films. I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge them, since you're locked into a mindset that says his films are worthless and have no redeeming qualities at all. But if you evaluated every version of Batman with that same mindset, you could easily condemn the entire franchise, regardless of who the director or writer was.

I just don't understand how it's fair to highlight Batman's refusal to kill in The Dark Knight as a flaw because he deliberately killed once in Batman Begins.

I can't help but quote all of these replies again because something right now just occurred to me, and I can't believe I somehow forgot about this.

A few months prior to this discussion (a year ago, to be exact), I found another thread where I spoke to Silver Nemesis about why I didn't like TDK.

And guess what? He actually AGREED with me that Nolan's Batman breaking his moral code throughout the series to be a valid complaint.

And it wasn't only for Batman Begins...he also agreed about everybody else that Batman killed in the sequels! Read 'em and weep:

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 12 Apr  2014, 19:22

Quotebut Nolan's take constantly breaks his moral code whenever he finds it convenient (Ra's al Ghul, Two-Face, Talia).

I can't argue with that.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sat, 12 Apr  2014, 19:22
Besides the inconsistency in Batman's moral code – and I agree with you, that is a problem – I didn't think the characterisation as a whole was problematic.

Source: http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=2658.10

Four months later though, he suddenly changed his mind and starts to make excuses for all the deaths that Batman caused other than Ra's, and even had the audacity to give me a few unflattering remarks along the way. Why the sudden change of heart, I wonder? Very strange.   :P

And looking back at Silver's comment about "evaluating every iteration of Batman with a negative mindset, you might as well condemn everything else regardless who wrote it", I find his reasoning to be very gullible, and even disturbing. What he doesn't seem to understand is that everyone has their favourite characters, but that doesn't mean we must blindly accept every interpretation of them either. It's not a question of being "negative" either - especially if one uses reasoning to explain why they found the writing in certain movies or comics more troublesome than most. It's insulting and even childish when somebody accuses others of having a bias when it's uncalled for.

I don't like Nolan's Batman at all. So what? Not everyone shares the same tastes or opinions. We all have our favourite takes on certain characters, and there are other interpretations that we would rather forget. If someone says Batman Returns sucks for example, I wouldn't give a damn. Let them believe it; they're entitled to their opinion.

You may be a big fan of Batman, Superman, Spider-Man or whoever, but if you honestly didn't think a certain take on the character was any good, then guess what: you don't have to like it. You don't have to conform to what anybody else thinks, just be honest with yourself. And if somebody else disagrees with you, you don't have to get upset. You can disagree with them, but politely explain your reasoning. Don't get so personal. That's what I do. I'm very vocal on my anti-Nolan stance, but I don't personally attack anyone who disagrees with me.

Besides, Silver Nemesis isn't a big fan of Man of Steel, yet I doubt he'd be very impressed or happy if someone told him "if you had the same negative mindset on every Superman iteration, you'd find flaws in everything", now would he? I wouldn't think so.